Sitting of 22 March 1989

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

    ASSOCIAIED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 April.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
      BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
        HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
          LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
            WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
              BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
                CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
                REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

                KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 April.

                CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
                Ordered,
                That the requirement of S.O. 168 (Charges affecting public revenue to be printed in italics) shall be dispensed with in the case of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Unified Development Plans
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed unified development plans; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The arrangements for the preparation of unitary development plans, including my right hon. Friend's strategic guidance, are well advanced. Responses are still being received to the draft strategic guidance for Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is much better if planning decisions are made locally whenever possible, and that the Government's record is much better than that of the Labour Government in this respect? Does he also agree that when unified development plans are in place there should be far fewer appeals to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Howard: Unitary development plans should certainly improve matters further, and I expect them to lead to a much greater say for local people in the taking of planning decisions.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local plans have particular significance for towns of historic importance—of which Shrewsbury is one, being among the top dozen on the Department's list of towns of specific importance? Shrewsbury, like the city of Durham is surrounded on three sides by a river and thus has particular planning difficulties, so the inspectors' recommendations to my right hon. Friend in respect of local plans are particularly important and should receive far greater credence.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of historic towns such as Shrewsbury. The local plan provides the framework for giving local people a greater say in these matters. The sooner all local planning authorities make progress in the preparation of these plans, the greater their voice will be.

    Water Privatisation
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss water privatisation.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): On Monday.
    Mrs. Mahon: Has the Minister seen the letter sent to Members of Parliament by Gordon Jones and the chairmen of nine other water authorities? If so, does he agree that water has deteriorated under their stewardship? They have never fought for the industry, and now they are saying that it would be better off privatised. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that they have a vested interest in privatisation, and should he not ask them to resign, given that they have not looked after the industry?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the excellent and impartial briefing that the water authority chairmen issued for the Report stage of the Water Bill. The fact emerges clearly from that, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, that maladministration by the Labour Government is primarily responsible for the wretched condition of some rivers, including those in her area.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of their incompetent management of the economy the Labour Government drastically cut investment in the water industry and in sewage treatment? Does he agree that the better way to get cleaner rivers, better beaches and new sewers is to denationalise the industry and release it from Treasury control?
    Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree. It is a tragedy that we are having such a problem cleaning up the legacy of Socialism, which is to be equated with pollution on every occasion.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Secretary of State explain why, despite the massive amount of Government propaganda and his undoubtedly brilliant persuasion, the overwhelm-ing majority of people in this country wholly reject the irrelevant, stupid nonsense of water privatisation?
    Mr. Ridley: I am afraid it is true that the matter has been handled neither well nor accurately by the Opposition.
    Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend met the chairmen, did he draw comparisons between the way in which the French independent water companies have raised the standards of water in their country and the sad performance of water companies and authorities in this country?
    Mr. Ridley: It is not without interest that France—which, under its present Administration, is not loath to nationalise—has set its face against interfering with the highly successful performance of its privatised water industry.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: When the Secretary of State met the chairmen, did he discuss spending on advertising? Does he agree that it is wrong for the chairmen of publicly owned water authorities to refuse to say how much public money has been spent on selling the Government's privatisation policies? Do not the paying public have a right to know? Or does the Secretary of State think that, in anticipation, of privatisation the appointees concerned should stop behaving like public servants and start behaving like the Government's political lackeys?
    Mr. Ridley: No, I do not agree. The water industry has every right to publicise its achievements and its wares and to make clear to the House what it believes to be the best way of achieving the increase in standards and efficiency that the country wants. It is strange that the hon. Lady should whinge and twinge because a publicly owned industry does not agree with her very foolish policies.

    Housing (Marginal Land)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the availability of marginal land for housing.
    Mr. Howard: The allocation of land for housing is primarily a matter for local planning authorities. However, authorities are encouraged to make maximum use of derelict or underused land in urban areas, and only last month we announced proposals by which local authorities in rural areas could permit low-cost housing for local needs to be built on land where planning permission for housing would not normally be granted.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Bristol it is almost impossible for a young couple on average or below average earnings to obtain any form of housing in or near the city? Does he agree that removing any possible planning obstacle to the development of difficult and therefore probably low-cost land would help the housing problems in our cities?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the authorities in Bristol and elsewhere will study closely our recent announcement, which should go a considerable way towards alleviating the problem.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that under his proposals he is trying to persuade the local authority in Stockport to find more land for housing than the local authority wants? Is he aware that between my constituency in Manchester and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) a considerable area is currently used for golf courses or poor quality farm land? That area constitutes an ideal breathing space between the cities of Manchester and Stockport. Will he ensure that permission is not granted for building on that land, which would deny many people access to land on which they enjoy walking?
    Mr. Howard: All applications for planning permission on that land and elsewhere should be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the circumstances of the case. That is the basis on which they will be dealt with.
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no need to take marginal land or green field sites for housing when there are more than 80,000 acres of vacant and under-used public land on the registers? Those registers are eight years old. Although the Government keep saying that they want to do more, the registers continue to grow and more land will continue to come on to them unless my hon. and learned Friend does something about selling the vacant, derelict or dormant public land.
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to ignore the substantial amount of land that has been taken off the register. We are making substantial progress. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the opportunities that exist, which are being rapidly exploited.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the homeless persons legislation to give local authorities a duty to make accommodation available for people under the age of 18 years who are homeless.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat homelessness.
    Mr. Ridley: My review of the homelessness legislation is not yet complete. I will announce the result as soon as I am ready to announce my conclusions, but it would be premature to speculate on whether any changes are to be made to the legislation.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware of the vicious circle confronting young people in London? They cannot get jobs because they have no homes, and they cannot get homes because they have no jobs. They end up—to use a phrase with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar—"skippering", or sleeping rough. Given that the Government have billions of pounds to spare, will the Secretary of State assure the House that on completing his review he will address head-on the problem of youth homelessness in London? Will he ensure that positive measures are taken to address the present appalling position so that many of the young homeless in our capital are housed later this year and in the future?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should do nothing to tempt young people to leave home, particularly when they do not have a home of their own to which to go. That is half the problem that we already face, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would exacerbate it. Over the past year, an additional £74 million has been made available to local authorities to deal with the most acute problems of homelessness, together with approval of £40 million additional housing association capital receipts to be spent on schemes focused on helping homeless families. That is a major contribution, despite the fact that there are still far too many empty council houses which could be used.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the increase in homelessness a direct result of Government policies, as manifested by high interest rates, which lead to mortgage defaults and repossessions? Is it not due also to the Government's failure to allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which less well-off families so urgently need?
    Mr. Ridley: The percentage of households rendered homeless as a result of mortgage arrears is declining, from 10 per cent. of those for whom local authorities accepted responsibility to find accommodation in the third quarter of 1987 to 7 per cent. in the third quarter of 1988. That does not bear out the hon. Gentleman's allegation.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to make housing available to those under age 18 would encourage the break-up of families and lead to a serious situation in which young people would be encouraged to leave home and come to the capital looking for accommodation?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There would be some encouragement for young people to leave home in the mistaken belief that it might be a way of jumping the queue for council housing. I hope that young people will not think that. I equally concede, as would my hon. Friend, that there are a number of genuinely homeless people who cannot return home, and it is those whom we should seek to help.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it costs £180 per week to house a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in my constituency, yet there are areas of derelict land—often in local authority ownership—and builders with low-cost housing
    1076
    schemes which together could provide accommodation for young homeless families at a lower cost per week than that of bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will my right hon. Friend's Department be favourably disposed towards planning applications and, in particular, to appeals in relation to schemes of that nature?
    Mr. Ridley: I have tried to take further measures to help in that kind of situation, with the announcement in February that local authorities can give planning consents for low-cost housing for local people as well as meeting their general housing provision obligations. That does not have to he in the most rural areas. It is one of the many routes already available whereby local authorities can secure extra housing provision, at the capital expense often of the private sector or of the Housing Corporation. I urge them to use it.
    Mr. Soley: Why has the Minister created such an acute shortage of low-cost accommodation in Britain?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that I have created any such shortage. I believe that the shortage of housing resulting from a very restrictive planning policy pursued by many local authorities in the south of England has contributed to it. If there were enough houses for everyone, it would be possible for everyone to be housed, but in a housing shortage low-income families are inevitably last in the queue.

    Land Registers
    Dame Janet Fookes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to include specific vacant sites of under one acre on the land registers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Since 1985 to the end of February 1989, requests have been received for registration and disposal in respect of a total of 225 sites, of which 46 were for the registration of sites smaller than one acre in size.
    In 1988, the amount of land on the land registers decreased by 6,175 acres.
    Dame Janet Fookes: I welcome the information given by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the position regarding land would be clearer if all sites under one acre were included on the register and a supplementary register were kept of privately owned land, bearing in mind that the present register is for publicly owned land only?
    Mr. Trippier: Under the present arrangements, the figures reflect that there has been considerable success in the removal of all land, public and private, from the register. The Ordnance Survey 1988 survey shows a further reduction of 4,199 acres of vacant land, a significant improvement on the previous year. That demonstrates that the policy is very successful.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that many of those small plots of land are covered with litter? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to inspect every one of those sites, taking with him a little bag and the Prime Minister? Then he can bag it and bin it and stick her in it.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman makes his own contribution to the amount of rubbish by the speeches that he makes in the Chamber. I do not imagine that he is making a very good job of setting an example in his own constituency as he certainly makes a significant contribution to the rubbish here.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of home starts by housing associations at the latest date for which figures are available; and what is the level expected to be reached as a result of the increase in funding for the Housing Corporation announced in last year's Autumn Statement.
    Mr. Ridley: A total of 14,651 approvals had been given by the Housing Corporation in the current financial year up to the end of February. In 1991–92 the corporation expects to approve more than 32,000 homes for rent and sale.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given are ample proof of the housing associations' ability to provide affordable housing for those in need? Does he accept that the huge increase in public funding provided to the Housing Corporation, coupled with private finance and the management skills within the housing associations is enabling those housing associations to achieve an impact on local provision which has not been emulated by many local authorities?
    Mr. Ridley: The figures show that the gross provision for the Housing Corporation programme was £1,328 million for 1991–92—an 80 per cent. increase on the original provision for the current financial year. That has since been increased by a further £40 million because of greater than expected capital receipts. That is a massive expansion. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should make a very great contribution, particularly as it is possible to target it on the areas of greatest need.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in areas of low values or high costs housing associations are having difficulty making private finance work and that the only way in which they can make it work is by reducing standards?
    Mr. Ridley: The areas of greatest need are not the areas of lowest cost. When I said that it is important to target finance, I had in mind the comments made by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, that the main problem of shortage of rented houses arises in the south-east and London. That seems to tie up very nicely.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his housing associations policy, which is reaching the village communities that we are anxious to preserve in rural constituencies. Will he confirm that private finance was introduced in a new way to the housing scene under the Housing Act 1988? Is he aware that locally politicians are anxious to promote new concepts of private finance, which they opposed when the Housing Bill was before the House, and that a scurrilous and dishonest campaign is being led by the Democrats in Wiltshire?
    Mr. Ridley: The latter, including the adjectives, would not surprise me in the least. I confirm that we hope that by 1991–92, about 80 per cent. of schemes will be mixed
    1078
    funded. Total public provision will not only be increased by 80 per cent. it will be greatly enhanced by whatever private finance can be attracted to swell it still further. This is by far the best way to obtain value for money. I hope that all authorities—even Liberal, Democratic or whatever they are called—will realise the importance of these new measures.

    Housing (Leicester)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the housing investment programme allocation to Leicester city council for 1989–90.
    Mr. Trippier: Leicester city council has been given a housing investment programme allocation of £8,555 million for 1989–90. It plans to add £43 million to this from capital receipts, most of which will be spent on improving and repairing the council's housing stock.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that that is a reduction in real terms of 26 per cent. in the allocation for the current year and will cause the gravest problems to the council's renewal strategy programme for private housing? Does he appreciate that there are 10,000 applications on the housing list representing 25,000 people? Does he accept that this disgraceful gutting of the council's housing programme yet again is unacceptable and intolerable?
    Mr. Trippier: I am sorry to have to argue again with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He chooses to ignore the amount of money—£43 million—drawn in by the local authority in capital receipts under the exercise of the right to buy, which is Government policy. He also chooses to ignore that amount of estate action funding that has been made available. It is only recently that Leicester city council has been prepared to work in partnership with the Department on that scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman further chooses to ignore the fact that the council could increase right-to-buy sales and thus draw in further capital receipts. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be interested only in council housing and does not recognise that the substantial increase that we have given the Housing Corporation will enable more housing associations in Leicester to build more houses for those on low pay.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: If the Minister will cool down, I am sure that he will recognise that in my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) there is a specific problem with Boot houses, which were built more that 60 years ago and have been found to have serious structural faults. As the Minister knows, Leicester city council has a demolition and rebuilding programme. Without doubt, leaving all political comments aside, it will experience severe problems. Will the Minister give a guarantee that, in specific and agreed circumstances, if a programme such as the demolition and rebuilding of Boot houses is placed in jeopardy he will be prepared to consider each case and, if necessary, allow increased additional expenditure?
    Mr. Trippier: I am prepared to look at the problems with Boot houses in Leicester. I have already had one meeting in Leicester with Leicester city council. I am sympathetic to the problems the council faces with Boot houses and I have already made it clear that we would

    1079
    assist, wherever possible, with the additional private finance that the council is trying to secure. I understand that it is being successful in that regard. I still believe that, with the flexibility of the estate action programme, it is possible to help with the renewal programme in that part of Leicester. If the city council wishes to talk to me again with the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends, I am only too happy to meet it.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Labour-controlled Leicester city council has the worst record for reletting council homes in the whole of the east midlands?
    Mr. Trippier: I can confirm that.
    Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it.
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend seemingly knows more about Leicester than does the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose constituency is in the city. What my hon. Friend has said is not fantasy or fiction, but fact. Leicester has the highest percentage of void stock. The total is 1,220, which is in excess of the number of homeless people registered in the whole county.

    Neighbourhood Councils
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he proposes to give to local authorities intending to devolve power to neighbour-hood councils.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): My guidance is to embrace the high aspirations, but to avoid the chaotic practice of Tower Hamlets.
    Mr. Taylor: I welcome the Minister's statement about neighbourhood councils, as he accepts clearly that they are a progressive way to devolve power to the local communities. As the Minister knows, the rules about proportionality in the Local Government and Housing Bill may affect neighbourhood councils and he has said that he may take some action. Can he say what action he will take to ensure that the Bill does not conflict with the desire to devolve power?
    Mr. Gummer: We are discussing the matter with local authority associations and have concluded that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have powers under the Bill to make such regulations as are needed to enable neighbourhood councils to operate on a different basis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to encourage the neighbourhood councils in Tower Hamlets to organise themselves so that we know how much they are spending and whose money it is.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Tower Hamlets thought that nothing could be worse than the old-fashioned carthorse of Labour control that had done so much damage to Tower Hamlets for so many years? But they were wrong. When the Liberals took control and introduced the neighbourhood councils, the people realised that the Liberals could be worse than the Labour party.
    Mr. Gummer: There is a major difficulty about helping Tower Hamlets at pesent because the council cannot tell us with any certainty about the financial pickle it is in. Until we know how big the pickle is, it is difficult to give advice.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister saying that all parish councils, town councils and community councils mirror Tower Hamlets? Will he apologise to the local authorities associations, which he says he has met on this very issue, because there are a number of local authorities that we believe are doing a splendid job? The Minister should agree and appreciate the work that those authorities are doing. He should not assume that such councils mirror the scurrilous information he has been given by his colleagues.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the question, which is about neighbourhood councils and not parish councils, of which I am thoroughly in favour and of which there are many in my constituency. The technical expression "neighbourhood councils" refers to councils such as those in Bethnal Green, Bow, Globe Town, Isle of Dogs, Poplar, Stepney and Wapping. The hon. Gentleman should read the question before he asks one of his own.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last reviewed the guidelines for granting costs against planning authorities when his Department gives planning permission on appeal.
    Mr. Howard: A thoroughgoing review preceded the issue, in February 1987, of the current guidance in circular 2 of that year. The practical operation of the guidance is kept under continuing review.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the present guidelines may give too much leeway to Government inspectors? Will he note that appellate costs are too often given against a council when permission is granted on appeal and that they often completely overlook important planning considerations and negate the proper functions of the planning authority?
    Mr. Howard: If that were so, the councils concerned would have a remedy by way of judicial review. My hon. Friend will be aware that in two recent and important cases my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made what will undoubtedly turn out to be substantial awards of costs against developers. I assure my hon. Friend that the policy is applied in an even-handed manner.
    Mr. Haynes: Not many moments ago, a Conservative Member congratulated the Secretary of State; I reckon he is useless, and I mean that. I should like my local authority to become involved in planning for housing. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Planning aware that we have not built any new properties in Ashfield since 1979, when that lot over there came into power? It would be nice to be able to use planning procedures to build for the youngsters who queue up at my surgery on Saturday morning and who cannot get properties in which to live. The Secretary of State ought to be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer his local planning authority to the Government's policies, including those announced last month, which will give it

    1081
    ample scope to make proper provision for land for development to provide houses for the very people to whom he has referred.

    Sewage
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much untreated raw sewage is poured into the sea each year.
    Mr. Ridley: About 14 per cent. of the sewage from England and Wales is discharged to the sea where it is treated through the disinfecting actions of salt water, sunlight and waves which together break down the bacteria as effectively as inland treatment. That is why the Royal Commission on environmental pollution concluded in its 10th report that with well-designed sewage outfalls, discharge of sewage to the sea was not only acceptable but environmentally preferable in many cases to alternative means of disposal.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. I realise that this matter falls within the ambit of the Scottish Office, but it also has general environmental interest, given the outfall area. Will he note that Highland regional council is currently backing a limited water sewage water treatment scheme locally, which is opposed by Ross and Cromarty and Inverness district councils and which has not so far been the subject of an environmental impact assessment? The Secretary of State for Scotland has refused to call it in. As the Prime Minister now poses as the green goddess, will the Secretary of State for the Environment invoke her name to encourage the Scottish Office to take a more responsible line, given the possible pollutant effects of the scheme?
    Mr. Ridley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would like to make the general point, however, that the best environmental option might well be to put the sewage out through a long sea outfall. That is what the experts recommend in many cases.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that I see no chance whatever of persuading my electors in north Wales to accept that answer. The plain fact is that sewage is being washed back on to our beaches, and we want to know how the new Water Bill will improve matters.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that there are many completely inadequate short sea outfalls, many of them dating from the Victorian era. That is why we have a major programme to extend outfalls to between 2 and 3 km out to sea so that the disinfecting action of the sea has time to act on the effluent before it can float back to the beach.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State realise that if he gives answers like that, people will not believe for one moment that the Government have any commitment to green solutions or to dealing with problems of pollution? Will he note, in particular, the opposition in Lancashire to the proposed extension of the Rossall sewage outfall near Fleetwood, to which there is overwhelming opposition and will he say that he is not prepared to let the North West water authority's proposal go ahead?
    Mr. Ridley: Without reference to that particular application, which is before me at the moment, let me say
    1082
    something serious to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Let me tell him that the alternative is inland sewage treatment works, which produce sludge which must be disposed of either in fertilisers, or by dumping on land or at sea or by incineration. This involves the discharge of high concentrations of bacteria in the area of the seaside resort although such works are difficult to site at seaside resorts. Disinfection is a possibility, but so far there is little experience of its use and there is concern about its possible effect on the marine biota. If the hon. Gentleman does not want a long sea outfall in any particular case, will he say which alternative he wants, where he would site that alternative sewage works and how strongly he would defend the destruction of molluscs, animals and fish in the sea due to the disinfection? He must be a little more scientific and a little less shambolic.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not a little inconsistent—but also rather typical of certain people—to complain on the one hand about poor water quality and sewage on beaches and in the next breath to complain about the higher water charges that are necessary to clean up the mess left by years of under-investment by the public sector water authorities?
    Mr. Ridley: With regard to that sort of doublespeak, I have a leaked letter from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall quote a sentence from it. It says:
    "Major increases, many in excess of 30 per cent., are being imposed on 12 million consumers who are being obliged to pay substantial additional costs as a direct consequence of privatisation."
    That is not the case. The major environmental improvements requested by the Opposition are the cause of the increases in water charges. The hon. Member for Copeland knows that, and he should withdraw his offensive remark.
    Dr. CunninghamAs the Secretary of state has now admitted that large amounts of untreated domestic sewage flow into the seas around Britian, will he tell us whether the Prime Minister was confused in her interview on the BBC "Nature" programme, when she said that no untreated sewage went into the sea around Britian? If she was not, had she again been wrongly briefed?
    Mr. Ridley: Was the hon. Gentleman confused when he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that the cost of environmental pollution could be put down to privatisation? When he withdraws that comment, I shall answer his question.

    Beaches
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the number of beaches which do not conform to European Economic Community standards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: We have received a number of representations about bathing water quality. As I announced on 22 February we are making good progress in cleaning up our bathing waters—two thirds of which now meet European Community standards, compared with 55 per cent. in 1987. We are the only member state in the Community to be developing a programme for achieving full compliance.
    Mr. Brown: Although recently there have been some long overdue improvements to bathing waters, is it not clear that the Government have been complacent for too long? The Government should remember that there are many floating voters who expect the water around the coast to be at least to the standard of the average European country. However, some 300 million tonnes of raw sewage a day are being pumped into the coastal areas around Britain, in addition to the dumped toxic chemicals. That is an untenable position. If the Government are turning green instead of blue, it is about time that they did something about the problem. After all, it is not an issue to be sniffed at.
    Mr. Howard: Before the hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of complacency, he should reflect on the fact that the Community's bathing water directive was promulgated in 1975, when it gave two years for the designation of bathing waters. However, when the Opposition left Government in 1979 not a single bathing water had been designated.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend consider the beaches at Dover and Deal? Will he in particular—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Tony Banks: Who did the hon. Gentleman's research?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the beach at Deal has problems because the Opposition, when in power, did little to improve it, especially when a Labour Member was representing that constituency? Now that a Conservative Member represents that constitutency, will my hon. Friend consider the representations of that Member and ensure that the beach at Deal is improved in the near future? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has done very well.
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made his representations to the Southern water authority. Substantially more money is being made available for the improvement of bathing waters and more still will be made available when the industry is in the private sector.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) he misled the House by saying that the British Government are the only ones who have presented a plan to Brussels for the improvement of the bathing beaches of Britain, because, up until yesterday afternoon, the Commission informed me that it was expecting a plan from the British Government by the middle of March, but that it had not received it? Furthermore water authority officials have been told not to speak about investment programmes for the beaches, as I found out when I telephoned the Welsh water authority last week.
    Mr. Howard: When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard tomorrow he will find that he has accused me of saying something quite different from what I said.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me how we stand in the European clean beach
    1084
    league and how much progress we have made since the Labour Government cut sewage disposal expenditure by 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Howard: I wish that I could tell my hon. Friend how much progress we have made, but as they did not designate any beaches or keep any records it is impossible to make such a comparison. Our position in relation to other European countries is improving substantially and the pace will quicken when the industry is in the private sector.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister accept that none of our south-coast beaches will conform to EEC standards if the lindane in the container that has sunk in the English Channel leaks into the sea? To what extent are the beaches and the marine environment at risk from the accident? What action have the Government taken to deal with the threat? Has there been a dispute between the French and British Governments over it? Where was the ship going before it sank and why were those deadly cancer-causing chemicals being transported? What was their intended use? Will he follow the Japanese and Swedish example by banning the use of lindane in Britain?
    Mr. Howard: I do not see how banning the use of lindane in Britain would have had any effect on what happened in the Channel the other day. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the French authorities are doing their best to recover that cargo and I hope that he will join me in wishing them all success.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is ridiculous for Opposition Members to complain about the present state of the water industry and then to argue that there should be no change in that industry? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that all the Labour party complaints underline the case for privatisation?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has been wandering round the country pointing at various dirty rivers as though to suggest that that in some way undermines the case for privatisation; but it makes the case for privatisation. That is the way in which we shall gain the extra resources necessary to achieve the improvements in our water environment that we all want to see.

    Water Rates
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average percentage increase in water rates in 1989–90.
    Mr. Howard: The estimated increase in all water and sewerage charges is likely to be about 11 per cent.
    Mr. Michie: How can the Minister pretend that privatisation will not cost the consumer more money when West Kent has put up its rates by 42 per cent. and has informed its consumers that 21 per cent. of that rise is due to the possible cost of privatisation and will have no effect on the improvement of the quality of the services or the water?
    Mr. Howard: I have looked carefully at West Kent's figures and most of the increase to which the hon.

    1085
    Gentleman refers is the result of ownership and accounting changes, which could take place at any time. The proposals in the Water Bill will put in place an entirely new system of regulating prices. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the prices of such companies controlled he should join me to ensure that the legislation is on the statute book as soon as possible.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that in respect of the charges being made by the West Kent water authority—which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) has no locus to represent —he will make sure that next year it is not able to put on 42 per cent. on the basis that it must pay—I appreciate that it will have to do so—for the EC regulations?
    Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that in assessing any price rise which may be applied for by the West Kent company next year, we shall be able to take into account its increase this year, and we shall certainly do so.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister appreciate that the need to make profits will be the overriding issue and that that must be borne in mind when considering the level of water rates? Does he further appreciate that it is unfair that the standing charge proportion of the water rate should have been increased so disproportionately that in some cases it has made it more difficult for low-income households to pay their water bills?
    Mr. Howard: The Director General of Water Services will be able to look into all such matters when the Water Bill becomes law. Will the hon. Lady join me in ensuring that it is on the statute book at the earliest possible moment?

    Planning Decisions
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further measures to ensure that planning authorities reach decisions more quickly.
    Mr. Howard: There is considerable scope within the existing system for planning authorities to reach decisions more quickly. In the longer term, our proposals for streamlining the system should make it easier for them to reach speedy decisions.
    Mr. Hunter: The White Paper draws attention to the fact that planning delays can increase costs for individuals and companies, but it does not go into details on why local planning authorities should be more efficient and streamlined under district development plans than under the existing local plans. Can my hon. and learned Friend explain?
    Mr. Howard: We shall substantially reduce the delays associated with the preparation and approval of structure plan by attaching greater weight to the local plan. We shall ensure that local people have a greater say and that there will be greater certainty in the process, and I hope that that will lead to fewer appeals.
    Mr. Eastham: The Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talk about streamlining and speeding up the machinery. Is it not a fact that for several years the Government have been cutting local authority expenditure on manpower and that that must result in fewer planning officers and civil engineers,
    1086
    who are essential for considering planning applications? Is it not a fact that if there are fewer personnel to process applications, the machinery will be slower?
    Mr. Howard: If local authorities, including those in Manchester, spent their money on more appropriate purposes than those on which they in fact spend it, they would have ample resources to devote to making the planning system work more efficiently.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister agree that it is equally important for local authorities to be coaxed by the Government into providing wider consultation with local residents on planning matters and giving them more time in which to register their approval or objections? Is he aware that far too many rapacious and greedy developers, such as Charles Church in my area and in the home counties, are, unlike decent developers, appealing automatically and putting in another application at the same time? Is he further aware that when the appeal is carried in their favour they make supernormal, huge profits in building socially useful housing such as luxury apartments costing £300,000 each? When shall we get a greater balance between the interests of local residents and decent developers?
    Mr. Howard: The way to achieve the best balance is to have as many local plans in place as possible. That is my advice to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will make sure that his local planning authority acts accordingly.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister agree that it is time for planning legislation to be reviewed in view of the fact that many planning authorities are compelled—for example, by high unemployment and general deprivation, particularly in inner cities—to reduce their planning levels to the point where they must concede that a development that may not be in the interests of good planning is nevertheless required for commercial development and the provision of jobs? Will he further agree that it is time that the trend that planning is following was arrested in the interests of the long-term planning of our towns and cities?
    Mr. Howard: We have been reviewing the planning system. We announced the results in our White Paper in January.

    Rate Increases
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rate increase for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: It looks as though domestic rates are likely to rise by an average of 8 or 9 per cent., but the London borough of Ealing has agreed a rise of 32 per cent.
    Mr. Greenway: Is it not preposterous that the London borough of Ealing should have proposed a rate rise of 32 per cent. this year, having passed a rise of 65 per cent. no more than two years ago? The current increase is accompanied by £12 million cuts in essential services such as street cleansing, refuse collection and the opening of borough libraries while there have been increases in the gay and lesbian staff unit. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been no refuse collections in some parts of my constituency since before Christmas? Is not that a disgraceful indictment of the borough in which the leader of the Labour party lives?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the residents of the borough in which we both live have shown their feelings about the rate rises by an 18 per cent. swing in a by-election to elect a Conservative rather than a Socialist. I have to tell my hon. Friend, though, that the London borough of Ealing is not the worst. Brighton has put up its rates by 57 per cent., although Conservative-controlled Hove next door has cut its rate by 100 per cent. and is not levying a rate at all.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell us what the rate increase for Westminster is? Will he also tell us what he would say about a Labour-controlled local authority that sold off its cemeteries for 15p, that was gambling on the stock market and that was totally corrupt and inefficient? What would St. Gummer say about that?
    Mr. Gummer: The rate increase in Westminster is 10 per cent. as against 32 per cent. in Ealing. If I lived in Westminster, the services and the quality of the services that I got would be very much better than those in the London borough of Ealing, where they are very bad indeed.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Wandsworth the rates are still the lowest in inner London? Does he agree that much of that is due to the fact that Wandsworth has led the way in competitive tendering? When the services have gone out to the private sector there have been savings of 33 per cent.; even when they have stayed in-house there have been savings of some 25 per cent.
    Mr. Gummer: The Audit Commission certainly supports my hon. Friend. I am interested to see that the effect of competitive tendering is spreading everywhere. When I met Councillor Bookbinder in Derbyshire, he admitted that the effect of competitive tendering, which he was against and which he had a whole committee to try to stop, was already bringing down the costs of his services, much to the dislike of NALGO and NUPE.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that if Calderdale, a hung council, had back the rate support grant that has been taken off it since 1979, it would have been able to have a nil rate rise this year?
    Mr. Gummer: I am aware that Calderdale has put up its rate in a disgraceful manner, and that it did so with the support of the Liberals who ran their usual operation, which was to pretend that they were against the rate rise but then not to vote on it—and therefore enable the Labour party to get it through. That is the sort of thing the Liberals go in for.
    Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to put himself in the position of a ratepayer in Langbaurgh? When the rate demand fell on the doormat this week the
    1088
    ratepayers found that their district authority had the highest rate in England and that their town councils were charging them 2p in the pound. Is he aware that in Cleveland county we have the highest rate poundage on top of that, at 299p in the pound—21p in the pound higher than any other county? Does he agree that when we have a change of control in Cleveland after the council elections in May the people in that area will have a much fairer deal?
    Mr. Gummer: The only person who is in favour of Cleveland county council is Mr. Bookbinder, the leader of Derbyshire county council. Because Cleveland's rate rises have been so great, it has pushed him off the top of the list, where he has been for some time. Cleveland has replaced Derbyshire as the highest-rated county in England. My hon. Friend will note that the higher the rates, the more likely the council is to be run by Labour, and that on average it costs a person £100 a year more to live under a Labour council than under a Conservative council.

    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in his efforts to replace chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators.
    Mr. Ridley: By the end of this year, European manufacturers of domestic refrigerators and freezers expect to reduce by 45 per cent. the CFC content of their products controlled by the Montreal protocol. New replacements for the CFCs, both as refrigerants and in the insulating foam, have been identified and should be commercially available early in the 1990s, subject to the satisfactory completion of toxicological testing and environmental evaluation. HCFC-22, which is much less damaging than the protocol CFCs, is already widely used in commercial and industrial refrigeration.
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for his very informative reply. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of imposing a requirement that the CFC package on refrigerators that are currently on sale should be detachable? Does his Department intend to give any financial assistance to local authorities to enable them to prepare and build disposal facilities for CFC elements that come from refrigerators?
    Mr. Ridley: Recycling the coolant in the motors of refrigerators and the foam in their doors is very complex. It will probably be better to concentrate our efforts on producing substitutes, so that we may stop using these substances in the first place. But a lot of research is still going on; I do not think that we have yet come to a definite answer.

Harland and Wolff
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Harland and Wolff. We announced in May 1988 that we were prepared to consider approaches from those interested in acquiring the yard. Since then a number of possibilities have been pursued. These have recently been narrowed down to two serious contenders, BT Shipping and a management-employee buy-out team led by Mr. John Parker, the current chairman of Harland and Wolff, and supported by Mr. Fred Olsen through two of his leading companies.
I can now advise the House that, having considered the proposals made by these two contenders, I have today approved, on behalf of the Government, heads of agreement for the sale of Harland and Wolff plc to Mr. Parker and his MEBO team, backed by Mr. Olsen.
The management-employee team and the Olsen companies will subscribe for £15 million of share capital to a new company. The company will then acquire the assets and the business undertaking of Harland and Wolff for approximately £6 million, net book value. The Government will advance to the new company £60 million of loan stock, on a repayment basis linked to performance.
Terms have been agreed under which the new owners will complete the single-well oil production system vessel for BP and the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel for the Ministry of Defence. The Government will provide grant assistance of £38·75 million towards the cost of rationalising the activities of the yard—including new capital expenditure.
Under this agreement, Olsen companies will order three Suezmax tankers of about 150,000 tonnes each. I have agreed to offer intervention aid on them within the limits permitted by the European Community. The initial orders will provide work for the yard until the end of 1992.
The new company will therefore receive from the Government repayable loan stock and grant towards rationalisation of £98·75 million and intervention aid on new merchant orders.
Furthermore, to enable the company to raise performance guarantees necessary for the financing of its operations in its early years, the Olsen companies have agreed to make a recourse commitment for use by the new company to support predelivery ship financing. The Government will match this.
The existing liabilities will remain with the old company and the Government undertakings in respect of these liabilities of Harland and Wolff will not extend to the new company.
Beyond the terms of the heads of agreement, the Government will not provide any other special support to the new company except intervention aid and other grants normally available to other private sector companies in Northern Ireland. In this respect, I plan to repeal my powers in relation to the yard in public ownership contained in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
The terms of the agreement are subject to contract and also a number of conditions including the approval of the European Commission, with which initial discussions have been held, and the agreement of the Norwegian authorities. Critically also, it depends on achieving the
1090
support of Harland and Wolff employees. In particular, they will be invited to invest in the new company. To this end, a prospectus will be issued by the new company in the summer. Completion is planned for early September.
In respect of funding, provision was set aside in the Northern Ireland block for support to Harland and Wolff under present arrangements, and I hope to be able to cover the costs of disposal from within the block without any disruption of other Northern Ireland programmes.
I am pleased to make this announcement today which offers the hope of a much brighter future for Harland and Wolff. This famous yard has experienced a steady decline in employment over many years, and the chances of its survival were bleak. This proposed transfer to the private sector under a management and employee buy-out led by the present chairman, Mr. John Parker, and reinforced by the strength and well-established reputation of Mr. Fred Olsen and his companies, offers the chance of a new beginning and comes at a time when there are signs of an improvement in the shipbuilding market.
A lot of us have worked hard to try and make it possible for Harland and Wolff to have this new chance—none more so than Mr. John Parker, who deserves great credit for his unstinting efforts. The challenge now is whether he will get the support to bring it to reality. This is not the end of the challenge. This is just the beginning for all those in Harland and Wolff to show that they can succeed again in the tough and competitive world of shipbuilding. I believe that the management and employees at Harland and Wolff, together with Mr. Olsen and his colleagues, are ready to meet that challenge and we wish them well.
Mr. Jim Marshall: First of all, I thank the Secretary of State for making his announcement before Easter and at last putting an end to all the speculation about the future of Harland and Wolff. We all welcome the end of the uncertainty. However, it will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State that we believe that the Government's whole approach to the privatisation of Harland and Wolff has been handled in a particularly clumsy and insensitive manner, which has directly contributed to the low level of morale among the work force and to the loss of highly skilled staff, not just from Harland and Wolff, but from the economy of Northern Ireland as a whole.
Additionally, we feel that the decision that the Government made in the middle of last year to withhold intervention funding and their refusal to permit the existing company to tender for new orders seriously undermine the existing company's position and will make it that much more difficult for the new company to succeed.
Nevertheless, we recognise that, once the Government had made the decision to privatise—I repeat that my party deplores that decision and that we still continue to oppose that policy—they had a difficult choice to make between the rival bids. However, the Secretary of State will recall that, in our debate a few days ago, I made it clear that the official Opposition preferred, and always have preferred, a management-employee buy-out as we believe that it offers the prospect of greater security for the future of the company, especially in the longer term.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. He referred to preliminary discussions with the European Community. In those discussions, did he receive

1091
any guarantee from the Commission that it would not block the financial arrangements being made for the privatisation?
As regards the short-term viability of the new company, does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a time lag of 18 to 19 weeks between when the orders for steel are made and when they are actually delivered at the yard? I am sure that he does. Therefore, will he, in the particular circumstances of Harland and Wolff, give permission for orders to be made now so that work may begin on the construction of the three Olsen tankers as quickly as possible in September? If permission is withheld until the new company comes into being in September, it will be at least the new year—January 1990—before any new steel work can begin on the Olsen tankers that will form the short-term basis for the viability of the new company.
Will the Secretary of State also give permission now for the company to tender for orders before the new company comes into existence in early September? Will he also seek to ensure that all the work force are involved in the discussions surrounding the buy-out, particularly in the light of today's press reports that a minority of the work force are apparently frustrated by the lack of information surrounding the buy-out? I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, if the venture is to succeed, it must have the full support of both the management and all the employees. We urge him to use his best endeavours to ensure that all the work force are fully involved in the discussions and the preliminaries leading up to the company.
Finally, may I also pay tribute to Mr. John Parker for his valiant work, both on behalf of the company and its employees to seek to ensure in the past—and I am sure, in the present—the viability of Harland and Wolff. I should also like to extend our thanks to the work force who, over the years, have seen the number of employees decline quite dramatically, but who still feel that there is a future for shipbuilding at Harland and Wolff in Belfast and who will support the new company with enthusiasm.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's opening comments were absolutely incredible. He described as clumsy and insensitive the outcome of something which not many in the House would have dreamt was remotely possible—the successful privatisation of a shipyard which, under the Labour party's policy of nationalisation, was heading straight for closure. The hon. Gentleman can read the book and see that, when the yard went into public ownership it had 10,000 employees, now it has barely 3,000. Not many people would agree that that was a recipe for continued success.
The hon. Gentleman talked about insensitive handling. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry had to take a lot of flak in Northern Ireland, while working extremely hard to guarantee the yard's successful future. Many people did not understand one of his most difficult problems, which was that if new commitments—new orders which might not have fitted the new strategy of the yard's potential owner—were made during the period of negotiation, they could well have frustrated any chance of privatisation.
I hope that the House will speak with one voice. This is a new beginning and a new oportunity for Harland and Wolff. Success is not guaranteed—many problems are still to be faced. There must he consultations with the work force. The hon. Gentleman, who has paid tribute to Mr.
1092
John Parker, knows that that will he his task and, also, that Mr. Parker has sought to keep people informed of what he is trying to do. It is precisely because he has been able to put together a management-employee buy-out that we are here today, hoping to celebrate the launch of what we believe can be a successful undertaking.
There is as yet no guarantee from the European Community. We have held initial discussions that appear encouraging, but we cannot be certain about that until the final proposals can be put to the Commission. It will need to examine them and see whether they fit in with Community policy. We are hopeful that they will.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of this statement, but we shall be dealing with the Water Bill, which is under a guillotine motion, and a ten-minute rule Bill today, so I ask for brief questions.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us have misgivings about privatisation, particularly in the shipbuilding industry, but that we have long recognised that this was not a matter of privatisation or public ownership—it was a matter of survival? In that context, not only those who live in east Belfast and work in the shipyard but the whole community in Northern Ireland will welcome the fact that the period of uncertainty has been brought to an end.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that a large section of the work force feel that they do not know enough about the detail of the management-employee buy-out, and that it is now essential that the details are made clear to them and the proposal is sold to them? Will he help Mr. Parker to sell the proposal to the work force and tell us whether he is satisfied that the dowry that has been handed to Harland and Wolff is large enough to capitalise the firm in the early stages of its growth?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be easy and immediate access to MOD orders and to intervention funding, not just for the three ships for which orders have already been received, but for further orders? I join in the Secretary of State's tribute to Mr. Parker, and I pay tribute, too, to the management team and the work force in Harland and Wolff, who have acted responsibly during the protracted period of negotiation.
Mr. King: I certainly recognise that this has been a period of acute worry for the work force and all involved in Harland and Wolff. One would have hoped that the period could have been shorter, but I think I am correct in saying that it is only seven weeks since Mr. Olsen showed his interest in being involved. If the House understands the complexity of heads of agreement and all the other matters that have to be covered, it will agree that that is a remarkable tribute to my officials who have worked on the agreement—officials do not always receive praise in this House. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will recognise the work that they have clone together with the management of Harland and Wolff under Mr. Parker's leadership, and that he will recognise the contribution of Mr. Fred Olsen and of Mr. John Wallace and his colleagues in the Olsen group of companies in bringing this to an effective conclusion.
The hon. Member chooses not to distinguish between privatisation and nationalisation, and says that he does not want to argue about them—he is interested in survival.

1093
Under nationalisation and public ownership the yard was headed in one direction—extinction. Its hope of survival and expansion stems from the fact that it now has the possibility of private sector involvement. The personal commitment of management and employees is hugely important, but so is the personal commitment of a well-respected outside shipbuilder.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be general satisfaction at this promising outcome? Does he agree that the commitment of Mr. Parker and the management and work force is a welcome development, and that the involvement of an industrialist of the international standing of Mr. Olsen will bring great confidence and a boost to industry throughout Northern Ireland?
All three political parties representing Northern Ireland wish to express appreciation of the personal efforts of the Secretary of State and of the painstaking trouble he took at all stages of the delicate negotiations. I include in that appreciation the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
It would be only right for me to say that I hope that the task of the Secretary of State was made a little easier by the joint approach of the three political parties which represent Northern Ireland in this House. It would be churlish if I were to omit the part played by SDLP colleagues in those meetings and negotiations. Will the Secretary of State convey our appreciation of the central role played by the Prime Minister and assure her that we, the elected representatives, will fully honour the understandings that were reached when we met her on 23 February—I choose my words carefully—and will do all in our power to assist the management and the work force to make a success of the commitment into which they have now entered?
Mr. King: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his kind words about whatever part I have been able to play and particularly his kind words about the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has had to take a lot of flak over this, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, but has stuck to his guns. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that.
I also appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the discussions that we were able to have, and those with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that coming together in that way was helpful. I hope that the lessons can be learned of the value of co-operation in areas where there is value in such co-operation. Northern Ireland speaking with one voice was a much more encouraging sign than some of the noises that we hear from time to time.
The important word which the right hon. Gentleman used was "promising". That is right, because this is not a signed, completed contract. This is the beginning of the challenge in which we all have a part to play; I include the hon. Member for Belfast, East in that, although I did not acknowledge that in my comments to him. We all have a part to play and I hope that we can ensure that this promising start reaches a successful conclusion.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
1094
has endorsed the goodwill and trust of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which reported to the House on Harland and Wolff, and also endorsed the confidence of the work force. I trust that the work force will respond, because it exhibits a very high degree of technical quality. While we wish Mr. John Parker and his team and Mr. Olsen every success, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will, without hesitation, make it clear to the Commission in Brussels that we expect its endorsement for the venture without delay? Harland and Wolff has the biggest and best shipyard in western Europe and we must ensure that it is maintained as a national and European asset.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having sat before him and answered his questions, I am well aware of his interest in this matter. I am also grateful for the interest shown by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. There was nothing between us about the fact that the Harland and Wolff shipyard is a major asset. The yard is important; It is on a larger scale than other yards in western Europe in general and its work force has considerable technical skills. The arrangement that I have announced today, if carried forward successfully, offers the possibility for those facilities to be put to the best possible use. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I assure him that I have tried to ensure that the right messages have been lodged in Brussels and we will carry that forward as soon as we can.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Whatever the delays and ideological road blocks created by the Government before an easier and earlier solution, the Secretary of State has made a very happy announcement today. I congratulate him on choosing the management-employee buy-out and on the work that he and his colleagues have done. He was right to pick out John Parker, whose commitment to Northern Ireland and to Harland and Wolff is very much a part of the deal. He was also right to pick out Mr. Fred Olsen, whose commitment to the deal will be observed from outside with some interest. Do they not both comprise a vote of confidence in the staff, and especially the work force?
I believe that the Secretary of State said that the support of the work force was "critical". Does he mean that it will be conducted on the basis of a vote, or does he mean that the commitment of the work force's money to the proposal in some proportion or another will be an essential part of the deal? If the latter, I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind especially that the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, and the uncertainty which has hung over Harland and Wolff, may well mean that many members of the work force, for reasons that he will understand, will not feel able to commit in large amounts what in essence will be their redundancy packages. I hope that that will not cause the deal to founder.
Mr. King: The heads of agreement that we reached today relate to a management-employee buy-out, which was planned by Mr. Parker and discussed by the management and employees of Harland and Wolff as a way of saving the yard and giving it the best possible chance for the future. When speaking of the support of the employees, that is very much what I have in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly picked up on the terms of the agreement, paraphrased though they were,

1095
and he referred to the word "critical"—but my use of that word goes wider. Harland and Wolff has an opportunity that it will not achieve under its present methods of operation. If the yard is to succeed, there must be changes, recognition of the need for new methods and new approaches, and new commercial vigilance and determina-tion. That is also what I meant by the support of the work force being critical. Mr. Parker can give the lead, but it is critically important that people are prepared to back him.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, and for the general support of hon. Members in all parts of the House for Mr. Parker and his colleagues. The Government will back them too, and I hope that all those in Harland and Wolff, who may have been used to a rather different working situation and atmosphere under public ownership, will realise that there is a new situation, and one in which they have their part to play.
Mr. James Kitfedder: Will the Secretary of State convey the thanks of the people whom I represent to the Prime Minister for her helpful and influential intervention, and for her approval of the finance enabling the deal to go ahead? Will the Secretary of State tell the House which factors made him decide to opt for the management-employee deal as opposed to the Eddie Pollock deal, and how much less it would have cost the taxpayer if the Pollock deal had been approved?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain that, in the final analysis, we had before us two strong contenders. I appreciate very much the interest of Mr. Eddie Pollock and his team and the care they took in making their proposals. My final judgment was that, on balance, on the evidence available to me, and because certain aspects of BT Shipping's proposals were not as clear and as final as I would have wished, that the accepted proposal offered the best prospects for the yard's continuing and enhanced success in the future. One of the factors that also influenced me was the need, as has been mentioned already, to reach a decision as early as possible. I could not afford to wait longer for further clarification of proposals that might not have been successful. I regarded the MEBO-Olsen proposal as a serious proposal, and as the one that I should recommend.
Rev. Martin Smyth: With other right hon. and hon. Members representing Belfast constituen-cies, I welcome the statement. As I said on a previous occasion in the House, that is good news not only for Belfast and Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom economy, because it will have a knock-on effect. Will the Secretary of State use his influence with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the shipyard will not be limited only to merchant shipping contracts but can tender for defence contracts as well?
I join others in calling upon the work force at Harland's to do what it has in the past. When others said that things could not be done, it did them. It built both the Titanic, which somebody else sunk, and the Sea Quest, which some people conveniently forget about. When Japanese firms said that ship could not be built, Harland's built it. The company has now been given a new opportunity, which I welcome.
Mr. King: If I was looking for an illustration of what Harland and Wolff can do when asked, it would be its
1096
support in meeting the urgent requirements for the Falklands campaign, which is an even more recent example than that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As to Ministry of Defence orders—I apologise for not answering this question when it was put earlier by the hon. Member for Belfast, East—it is our intention that the yard will be able to tender for them. I am not sure how many orders there are around at the moment, but it is certainly our intention that the yard will be able to do that.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations to him and to the Under-Secretary of State on finding an imaginative solution which eluded many of his predecessors, including me? What did he mean by the liabilities that remain in the old company? Was he referring to the accumulated debt in capital and interest? If so, how will that be dealt with under the terms of the competition policy of the European Commission?
Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's gracious comments. The sentence he will have noticed, which points out the difference and shows why it was possible to make the announcement today, states that there is expected to be an improvement in the shipbuilding industry. That has led to greater confidence and made it possible to consider proceeding in this way, and it accounts for the considerable private sector interest in the company.
Mr. Bob Clay: Why are the Government closing other yards, then?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is correct that the accumulated debts will remain and are likely to have to be written off. There are also certain rather smaller ship financing liabilities connected with orders for previous ships for which the old company, retains responsibility.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State note that, while we would have preferred the company to have remained in public ownership, we welcome his Easter present to the people of Northern Ireland in bringing the uncertainty to an end so soon after the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? Will he clarify his announcement a little further? Will the company be able to accept new orders and tender for Ministry orders from now on, without waiting for the new company to be brought into existence? Finally, I do not want to end on a sour note, but does the Secretary of State envisage that the labour force will remain stable until the new company is established and that there will be no further redundancies?
Mr. King: On the last point, some redundancies have been announced and it is likely that they will need to go ahead, but it will then be a matter for Mr. Parker, who will be able to advise further how he sees the situation developing. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the company taking new orders. That is a complicated matter. I said that I hoped that the transitional period would be completed by September. During that time, a prospectus will be prepared and details will be put before the work force to establish whether the various details can be tied down into a final contract.
The complexity of, and one of the difficulties in negotiating, those heads of agreement is deciding what to do about existing contracts and who takes liability for what in regard to the SWOPS and the AOR being built at

1097
the moment. There will need to be further discussions about other orders. Under the proposals, the first orders likely to be in the yard will be the three orders which are part of commitment to Mr. Olsen for three Suezmax tankers.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an achievement which meets the wishes of the employees as they stressed to us when we took evidence there that it was their wish that the management buy-out in league with them should succeed? He may also be interested to learn that, when the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was over in Brussels recently, we stressed the need for a quick decision should this happy situation arise and we were certainly led to believe that they were well aware of the desirability of the quickest possible response to the application for approval from Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. King: I know the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the matter, and I am grateful to him for lending his powerful voice to the pressures which others are trying to apply to the Commission in the hope that we may receive an early response. I hope that he felt that the responses he received were not discouraging. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about that achievement. Two or three years ago, not many people would have had much hope that Harland and Wolff could conceivably be privatised, yet under nationalisation it could never have had the direct personal involvement and commitment of a major figure within the shipbuilding and shipping industry who can contribute his resources and connections, which, as Mr. John Parker would be the first to say, bring a major additional strength to the new consortium.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State accept that, while we are all delighted with the decision that he has announced, much work needs to be done especially in Belfast, by the Northern Ireland Office—his team of Ministers and himself—in the wake of this decision? Will he acknowledge that the uncertainty that the Government have displayed —I do not wish to enter into recriminations—over almost the past year had led to a drop of morale in the yard and instability on the streets of Belfast?
In the new spirit we have seen today, will the right hon. Gentleman pursue his decision to its ultimate conclusion as quickly as possible, reassuring not only those in the yard but those who live in Belfast about the Government's intention to create new stability in Northern Ireland? I encourage him to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that, as soon as possible, the opportunity is accorded to Harland and Wolff to bid for a Ministry of Defence order.
Mr. King: I reject completely the allegation and suggestion of uncertainty. We have been determined to achieve the privatisation of Harland and Wolff—a project that many would have thought quite impossible and without which the yard would have been condemned to certain closure. We have succeeded, but it has not been easy and there have been many problems along the way. Unfortunately, they arose against a background of great
1098
and instrusive interest in publicity, reporting and comments made by individuals from different sides, which made the task all the more difficult.
We must recognize how difficult that task was. It looks as though it has been successfully accomplished. I am glad that, far from showing uncertainty, we stuck resolutely to the path on which we had embarked, which we believe has been brough to a successful conclusion.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called all hon. Members who are directly involved in the statement. I recognise that other hon. Members have an interest, but I ask for brief questions.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tribute he paid to Mr. John Parker and those who work at Harland and Wolff is well deserved? Is he further aware that the confidence that he expressed in them is shared by all Conservative Members? As my right hon. Friend is a party to the heads of agreement, will he do his utmost to convert them into an actual agreement at the earliest possible date?
Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend's tribute to Mr. Parker and his team and to Mr. Olsen and his colleagues will be much appreciated, and is well deserved. I assure my hon. Friend that I wish this further stage to be brought to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can advance, and the question of the yard taking further orders from other sources can be considered. People understand that, if we can carry this proposal through, the intended direction for the yard must become a possibility, given the assets it has. I give an unqualified yes to my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Bob Clay: I welcome the potential salvation of any shipyard and believe that the skill, ingenuity and determination of Mr. John Parker, far more than the policies of the Government, may save Harland and Wolff. Before the Secretary of State made the statement, did he have discussions with his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about how he would square the level of support, state aid and writing-off of debt for Harland and Wolff with the pathetic conditions made available to North East Shipbuilders Ltd. before it closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is so optimistic that the proposal will be accepted by the European Commission, when we were continually told by the Department of Trade and Industry that much more modest proposals for shipbuilders in Sunderland and other shipbuilders' subsidiaries on the mainland would not be acceptable to it?
Can the Secretary of State explain why, as he has already said today that possibly the greatest reason why Harland and Wolff may survive is that there is now an upturn in the shipbuilding market, his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry have been denying that for a long time and have been closing other shipyards? How can the Secretary of State square all this within one Government?
Mr. King: Of course, other Departments are aware of my proposals today. I understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment about the problems at North East Shipbuilders Limited and we all share that. It was not possible to find a viable future in any of the offers put

1099
forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not in the business of seeking to denigrate other yards and employees. The Harland and Wolff yard has assets that NESL, sadly, does not have. Harland and Wolff has the capacity to build the size of ship that NESL cannot build. Harland and Wolff will have the involvement of an outside investor who is well respected within the shipbuilding and shipping industry. I am not sure whether such an investor was available to NESL.
The test that we had to apply was whether the proposal offered a viable prospect for the future of the yard and for the enduring future of shipbuilding. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had to speak at the Dispatch Box about NESL. Sadly, the Government were not able to see such a long-term, viable future in the proposals put before them then. The proposals I have announced today have such viability.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the only criticism of this excellent decision is that it was not possible to make it many years ago? Even the designer Socialists in the Opposition seem to recognise that people now want the spirit of enterprise, not the old, decayed decadence and dogma of clause 4, which some Opposition Members still seem to want?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right. The involvement of Mr. Olsen and his colleagues, together with the contribution of Mr. Parker and the commitment and enthusiasm of the people working at Harland and Wolff, are a combination that could be an exciting prospect.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State seems confident that Harland and Wolff will be able to compete for Ministry of Defence work. At the time of the AOR1 contract, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence gave the House clear assurances about that order and about public subsidy. Can the Secretary of State tell us today that there will still he no element of public subsidy for the AOR1 order, that the vessel is still being built to cost and that it will arrive on time? Can he tell us that that is the basis on which he expects Harland and Wolff to be able to compete for Ministry of Defence work and that the Government have not reneged on the promises given to the House three years ago?
Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that comment as he speaks for a constituency that has been entrusted with the AOR 2, precisely because the undertakings that I gave from the Dispatch Box have been honoured. His comment was pretty churlish and snide.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I also want to congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), on their imagination and skill in putting together the deal. However, can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any preferential scheme for lower-paid employees to be able to buy shares? It is imperative that as many as possible are brought in as shareholders and owners of the new company.
Mr. King: I would rather that this matter was put before the employees by Mr. John Parker. He has constructed his proposals and has discussed with senior management, management and employees his ideas for the way in which they could contribute. I would rather leave that to him.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The importance of this yard extends far beyond the Province, and the announcement made this afternoon could have an important bearing on my constituency with regard to the Norwegian connection and the orders for the three new tankers to be built with shipbuilding intervention fund money. May I remind the Secretary of State that when the Norwegian firm Kvaerner Industries acquired Govan shipyard, part of the deal was that it would place orders for new engines with Clark Kincaid of Greenock? Surely the Secretary of State should be advising the new owners of the Ulster yard that shipbuilding intervention fund money must be used to acquire purchases from suppliers within the United Kingdom? He and all hon. Members will surely forgive me when I say that orders for the engines for the three new vessels should be placed with a Scottish firm—namely, Clark Kincaid.
Mr. King: I can understand the hon. Gentleman putting in a bid on the part of his constituents, but he knows very well that Clark Kincaid and Govan shipyard were part of British Shipbuilders, and the arrangement was part of British Shipbuilders' understanding over the transfer of Govan to Kvaerner. Obviously, the continuance and possible expansion of Harland and Wolff, if it is successful in the future, is good news not just in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. It must be very good news for British Steel if the corporation is competitive, because three Suezmax tankers will take a lot of steel. If the yard had not continued to operate, that steel would not have been bought. That is part of the spin-off effect of the proposals. I am sure that Mr. John Parker and his colleagues will view sympathetically any competitive offers from firms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as we would all like as much as possible to be procured in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What guarantees of job security up to and beyond 1992 did the Government get from Mr. Parker, given the Secretary of State's initial remarks about further rationalisation costs? What exactly does that rationalisation entail? Secondly, given about half a billion pounds, worth of debt cancellation and the subsidies announced by the Secretary of State today, why do not the Government put money into Harland and Wolff to allow the company to flourish and prosper in public ownership, instead of putting money in to allow private shareholders such as Mr. Olsen to reap the benefits?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's economic brilliance seems to have deserted him for once. If there are accumulated debts, there is no money to put in; that money has already been lost over the years. It is a question not of putting new money in but of writing off money that has already been lost.

British Nationality (Honorary Citizenship)
4.16 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the award of honorary British Nationality to any individual for outstanding humanitarian services in Hungary during the period July 194–4 to January 1945.
At the outset, let me say that the intention of the Bill is that honorary British citizenship should be awarded to Raoul Wallenberg. Early-day motion 234 encapsulates the spirit of the Bill, and I am grateful to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have signed it, thus showing their support for the measure.
I wish to record my thanks to those who have assisted me in preparing the Bill. They include United States Congressmen Ted Weiss and Tom Lantos, Mrs. Rachel Haspel of the Raoul Wallenberg Committee of the United States, the Jubilee Campaign, Miss Louise Smith and Mr. Paul Lennon.
I shall first address the work of Raoul Wallenberg in Budapest in those incredible closing months of world war 2; then I shall explain why I think that honorary British citizenship should be awarded.
More than 100,000 men, women and children undoubtedly owe their lives to Raoul Wallenberg. Although the great majority of them were Jewish, the record shows that Catholics in Budapest were also persecuted and that Wallenberg protected them. Raoul, who has rightly been called "the righteous gentile" did not stop to inquire about religion; he saved all he could, regardless of faith.
When Wallenberg arrived in Budapest on 9 July 1944, newly appointed to the Swedish legation, he immediately went into action. He arrived dressed in a windbreaker, carrying a rucksack, a sleeping bag and a revolver. The latter, he said, was merely to give him courage; he never used it. He immediately began to issue certificates for the Jewish people who already had visas for Sweden. He invented, on the spot, a procedure that was subsequently the saviour of thousands of people—the Schutpass or protective passport. That consisted of an official-looking document with the Swedish colours, the Swedish coat of arms and the ambassador's signature—all the formality necessary to impress the Germans.
Wallenberg negotiated with the Germans for permission to distribute 5,000 of those passports. Instead he printed and distributed thousands more than the original limit. He rented houses, protected them under the flag of Sweden, and sheltered as many persons as he could. Those houses held about 20,000 people. Wallenberg encouraged other embassies to follow that example, bringing the number rescued in that way to 50,000 people.
Wallenberg was untiring and relentless in his efforts, repeatedly risking his own life. The Germans made several attempts to kill him. He knew the danger, but he would not withdraw. He had authority, diplomatic status and undaunted courage, and he intimidated the Nazis by his mere appearance.
Almost daily, Wallenberg went to the railway stations in Budapest where Jewish people were on their way to Auschwitz in cattle cars with the doors nailed shut. He commanded the doors to be opened as he looked for people with Swedish passports. He would take people who had a driver's licence, a library card, a receipt or any piece of paper written in Hungarian, which the Nazis could not
1102
read. He marched away with 100 people here and 100 there, in front of the Nazi guards. The same story was repeated in the death marches to the Austrian border.
Wallenberg's greatest skill was in negotiating with the Germans. At one time the Hungarian Nazis—the so-called Arrow Cross—in their desperation decided to exterminate the general ghetto. People had been herded into the area and put into star-marked houses as a last stop before Auschwitz. Families were separated and no food or clothing was provided. People were at a level of exhaustion and despair. As the Soviets closed in on the city, the Nazis decided to blow up the ghetto. Wallenberg heard of the plan. He confronted the Nazi leaders and told them that he personally would see them hanged as war criminals if they proceeded with their outrageous action. The plan was stopped, thus sparing an estimated further 70,000 lives.
Wallenberg was only 32 years old. He was viewed by Hungarian Jewry as a saviour—a white light in a horrible darkness. In those nightmarish days, he was already a legend. The fact that he existed was passed among the Jews in whispers through the streets of Budapest.
After the Russians took Budapest in January 1945, Wallenberg mysteriously disappeared. The Russians said that they had taken him into protective custody. Then a curtain of silence fell on his fate. Efforts to obtain his release, or any information about him, have been ignored by the Russians. Andrei Gromyko informed the Swedish Government in 1957 that Wallenberg had died of a heart attack 10 years earlier in a Soviet prison. He would have been only 36 years old. No prison records have ever been produced. However, over the years, continued reports from former prisoners of the Gulag, independently and without knowledge of each other, have consistently testified to the fact that he was still alive in the Soviet prison system.
The flagrant disregard by the Soviets of Wallenberg's diplomatic status—in violation of international law—is a fact that cannot and should not be ignored. Whether he is alive or dead is, of course, of utmost importance, but that has no direct relevance to the decision to bestow upon him honorary British citizenship. Bestowing honorary citizen-ship is not only the greatest recognition that we could give Raoul Wallenberg, but the action would be our most appropriate. Raoul Wallenberg was not the head of state of a great Government. This act is not a self-interested national investment in future political alliances. This man's life shows the heroism, willing self-sacrifice and dedication to a cause that is unparalleled in our time. He has illuminated our history.
We need to take this unprecedented action to let the Russians and the world know that in a civilised society the violation of international law and human rights will never be ignored, that we do not forget and that Raoul Wallenberg will not be abandoned by Britain.
It would be fitting and appropriate if, on 9 July 1989 —45 years to the day after he began his mission in Budapest—we could announce that Raoul Wallenberg is, from that day forward, an honorary citizen of Great Britain.
Undoubtedly Raoul Wallenberg is deserving of limitless praise for his selfless and courageous action. Unlike many others who preferred to remain indifferent in the face of the unspeakable horrors of the holocaust, Raoul Wallenberg refused to ignore the perverted evil of the Nazi regime. He acted; we can do no less on his behalf.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. David Atkinson, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONORARY CITIZENSHIP)
Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the award of honorary British Nationality to any individual for outstanding humanitarian services in Hungary during the period July 1944 to January 1945: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 May and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
Orders of the Day
  Water Bill
    2ND ALLOTIED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    Clause 7

      GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL DUTIES
      4.27 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 7, line 23, at end insert—'
      or relating to any land to which this section applies'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 116, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
      `or relating to any land to which this section applies'.
      No. 110, in page 7, line 42, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      `(aa) to preserve and maintain public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff, water areas including reservoirs, or foreshore and other places of natural beauty.'.
      No. 117, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'and'.
      No. 118, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
      `or of any other land to which this section applies'.
      No. 121, in page 8, line 24, at end insert—
      'with the exception of access on foot by the public to the land'.
      No. 119, in page 8, line 26, at end insert—
      '(6A) This section applies to any land which was owned before the transfer date by a water authority.'.
      Mrs. Taylor: The amendments open up an important area of the Bill and I hope that we shall be able to make some progress in our discussions.
      The amendments are to clause 7, which relates to:
      "General environmental and recreational duties"
      and which has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all acknowledge that it is important to get this part of the Bill right. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister for Water and Planning gave us many assurances and said that we were worrying unduly about the restrictions on access that might come about as a result of the Bill. He told us that all was well and that there was no need for us to worry. He did not convince us then and he did not completely convince himself, because since our discussions in Committee—not that long ago—the hon. and learned Gentleman has reconsidered the issue.
      I do not want to anticipate later debates, but we welcome the Minister's change of heart, as shown by some of the amendments that he is introducing, particularly Government amendment No. 57 on the rights to roam. We raised that issue in Committee and he told us not to worry, but I am glad that he has accepted that there were problems with the Bill as originally drafted.
      The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I am sure that the hon. Lady will recall that during our discussions of these matters in Committee I said that I would keep an open mind and would listen to the argument and that if I was persuaded by the argument I would act accordingly.
      Mrs. Taylor: I repeat that I welcome the Minister's amendments. I hope that we shall be able to persuade him to go a little further and that he will be able to reassure us about some of our other concerns about access.
      Three main problems still exist with clause 7. The first concerns the weakness of the phraseology in the Bill, in particular the phrase
      "have regard to the desirability of"
      in clause 7. We are still convinced that that phrase does not afford proper protection for the recreational rights now enjoyed by many people.
      4.30 pm
      The second problem is the need to discover to whom the duties in the clause apply. Will successor companies be included? Amendment No. 119 is aimed at ensuring that the successor companies and any subsidiaries of the new privatised water companies are caught under the obligations that the Bill imposes on water undertakings. The third problem is about charging. Amendment No. 121 deals with that problem and with the pressure on new owners of land to introduce charges even for access on foot:
      When we discussed these issues in Committee, it was pointed out that the Water Act 1973 put duties on all water authorities and on statutory water companies to make their land available for recreation. Since then some progress has been made; many water authorities have opened up more of their land to the public. Conflicts still arise in some places. For example, the Yorkshire water authority sometimes gives priority to grouse shooters rather than to ramblers. But in general the situation since 1973 has improved and it has been easier to persuade water authorities to open up some of their land.
      We pay tribute to those who piloted that measure through the House, including the present Secretary of State for Wales. It is ironic that another Conservative Secretary of State should be sweeping aside that measure, which has worked over the years in the public interest.
      The Bill contains two main recreational duties. The first appears in clause 7(2), which states that every relevant body must
      "have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountains, moor, heath, down, cliff or foreshore and other places of natural beauty".
      When the matter was debated in Committee on 31 January, we interpreted the phrase "public rights of access" to mean just that. But the Minister said that it was wrong for us to conclude that "public rights of access" meant public rights of access, and he said that a wider interpretation covering concessionary routes was necessary or the provision would be an absurdity.
      We agreed with the Minister; unless "public rights of access" meant more than simply rights of access, the duty to protect those areas would be meaningless because public rights of access already exist in law and are not in need of special protection. There is agreement on that, it seems.
      We are pleased that the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment to end that absurdity. We welcome his move to extend the provision, even though it gives only nominal protection, with the change from "rights of access" to "freedom of access". However, that will be meaningful only if the whole clause has bite and strength. Unfortunately, clause 7 does not have any bite because the duty imposed is only
      "to have regard to the desirability of"
      1106
      preserving for the public any freedom of access. That means that nobody need do more than simply think about whether something is desirable. If the new profit-seeking companies decide that the preservation of access is not desirable or that it in some way conflicts with their enterprise activities, the duty will be meaningless.
      The second main recreational duty is to be found in clause 7(3). Under the 1973 Act, public bodies managing land owned by the public were told to do what they could to open up their land to the public. Now, what appears to be a similar duty is being placed on the new private water companies.
      It is important to remember, however, that private companies are answerable not to the public but to their shareholders. Their priorities will not be those of a public authority. Clause 7(3) states that the National Rivers Authority, water and sewage undertakers and internal drainage boards have a duty
      "to take such steps as are—

      (a) reasonably practicable; and

      (b) consistent with the purposes of the enactments relating to the functions of that body,

      for securing, so long as that body has rights to the use of water or land associated with water, that those rights are exercised so as to ensure that the water or land is made available for recreational purposes and is so made available in the best manner."
      Those bodies do not have to open up their land if they consider that it is not reasonably practicable or if they think that it is not consistent with the purposes of the enactments relating to their other functions. We accept that there will have to be operational restrictions and that some will be justified in some uses of some of the land. That is bound to be a small proportion of the land, but there will be nothing that the public can do to ensure that these bodies open up the remainder of their land, whereas under the present system the public can publicly press a public body to open up public land to the public, as is right. The ability to pressurise and to make sure that land is opened up will be reduced in future.
      There is an important intrinsic difference between a public landowner and a private landowner. While public landowners do not have a perfect record, they have a far better record than private landowners. We have only to consider the record of the statutory water companies, who were under the same obligation under the 1973 Act, to see that they have not opened up their land in the same way that water authorities did in the past. Therefore, we think that the recreational duties are very weak, and we hope that the Minister will accept our point that they should be strengthened.
      That brings me to the second question. To whom do these duties apply? Who, exactly, will have to have regard to the desirability of protecting for the public any freedom of access? That is the main point of disagreement between the two sides of the House. I do not think that we disagree on our objective but only on how to achieve it.
      In Committee the Minister stated that the extent to which land could be disposed of free of the duties imposed by clause 7 would be severely limited. That conflicts with the advice and the information given in a letter on 4 January from the Department of the Environment to the chairman of Thames regional recreation and conservation consultative committee, which said:
      "These statutory duties will only apply to the plc core business since it would be impossible to justify a blanket extension to subsidiary companies."

      1107
      That worried my hon. Friends and many organisations outside the House. The Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and the Youth Hostels Association were so convinced that the Minister was making incorrect statements to the Standing Committee, and that he was misinterpreting the Bill, that they clubbed together and paid for counsel's opinion out of their meagre resources to clarify the legal position. Counsel's opinion stated clearly that the Minister's statement in Committee was wrong. Counsel went on to say—I am sure that the junior Minister has seen this opinion; I know that the Minister of State has—
      "The Minister turns out to be wrong to say that it is not possible, merely by disposing of ownership, to free the use of land from the clause 7 duty."
      The opinion goes on:
      "The Minister speaks as if the clause 7 duty attaches to the land when in reality it does nothing of the sort."
      The basic question remains: do the clause 7 recreational duties apply to the land no matter who owns it, or do they apply only to the limited list of relevant bodies defined in the Bill? That is the core of the discussion on this clause.
      The purpose of amendment 119 is to ensure that all the duties in the Bill apply to subsidiary bodies. I hope that the Minister will accept that point, because water authorities that are gearing up for privatisation are acting as if the duties will not apply to all the land. I look, for example, to the Yorkshire water authority, which has announced its post-privatisation structure. It intends to split its activities into three divisions, only one of which will be the water undertaker as licensed by the Secretary of State. If the land is owned by either the main holding company or the enterprise division that Yorkshire Water is establishing, which will have a duty to make a profit, that land will escape completely the recreational duties provided for in the Bill. The Minister tells us that the Bill will achieve something that we want it to achieve, but the very clear legal opinion is that it will not.
      In a letter of 6 February to Members of Parliament, the Under-Secretary, who will be replying, has made his position clear. I hope that he will accept that amendment No. 119 fulfils the obligations which, in that letter, he spelt out as being necessary. Our amendments make it very clear that clause 7 should be extended so that its provisions will apply to any land owned by the water authority before the transfer date, I hope very much that the Minister will accept that point.
      Finally, I want to say a few words about charging, which is the subject of amendment No. 121. Clause 7(5) clearly enables the new owners to introduce charges for public access to open spaces. It says:
      "Nothing in this section or the following provisions of this Act shall require recreational facilities made available by a relevant body to be made available free of charge."
      The Under-Secretary of State, in his letter, said that he saw no reason to believe that, in practice, access would be made subject to considerations of competition and profit. He said that he found it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the companies would find it sensible or cost-effective to make charges.
      However, it is obvious to all of us that, once these private companies are established, their main priority will be to maximise their profits, and they will be under considerable pressure to do so. Therefore, charges will be introduced, and they will be set at a very high level—or at the highest level possible in accordance with the workings of those companies. Obviously, charges cannot be
      1108
      introduced for walking where there are rights of way, or for walking over land where there is a right of access. But most public access to water authority land is not as of right. That is the nub of the debate. In the majority of cases, access is enjoyed only by the permission of the water authority, and it is that access which is under threat and for which charges might be introduced after privatisation.
      If the Government have no intention of allowing or encouraging charges to be introduced for rambling I see no reason why they cannot support our amendment No. 121, which states that if charges are to be made for recreation, they should be made
      "with the exception of access on foot by the public to the land".
      We are talking about large areas of land in areas of outstanding natural beauty which are enjoyed by the public who own it and who have rights of access that have been granted on a concessionary basis by the water authorities. That access is seriously threatened both by the provisions in the Bill which could deny any access and by those that could allow charging.
      The new water companies will be operating under considerable pressure to maximise their profits. The access that we have all enjoyed for so long could become a thing of the past if the Bill is enacted unamended. I therefore hope that the Minister and the House will accept our amendments.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on amendment No. 119 in particular. I have no pecuniary interest, but I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of County Councils. My hon. Friend mentioned several organisations, such as the Ramblers Association. On an all-party basis, the Association of County Councils is worried about what the Government are doing in terms of recreation and conservation as the water authorities are major land owners in this country.
      The Association of County Councils is especially concerned about what happened in Committee. It feels that the greatest potential weakness in the draft code proposed by Ministers in Committee was the suggestion that it should apply only to land directly related to water supply and works. I stress the words "directly related". In Committee, the Minister accepted that the vast areas of land currently owned by the water authorities but not used in their core water operations might not be covered by the code, so the water plcs set up by the private companies to manage their non-operational lands will not be covered by the proposed duties in relation to conservation, recreation and public access.
      Clause 6 places a duty on those private companies— understandably, because they are private companies—to be concerned with economy and with profit-making, but we are dealing with institutions which hitherto have had a public responsibility. Clause 6 conflicts with anything that the code may state. The private companies can say that they have a duty under clause 6 to make a profit and that any code in operation must he secondary to that.
      The Association of County Councils is worried because several councils are affected, including national park land in Cumbria, north Yorkshire, Devon, Somerset and the Peak District. In all those areas, water authorities own large amounts of land, some of which is not directly related to their core activities. The Secretary of State has tabled

      1109
      amendments to maintain public access to certain areas in the Lake District and the Elan valley, but they do not go nearly far enough and they neglect and ignore all the other areas to which the public now have access and where conservation is an issue. Such land is not exactly public land, but the public have rights over the land because it is overseen by a responsible public body rather than one designed purely to make a profit for its shareholders.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is my right hon. Friend fully aware of the Secretary of State's comments yesterday when he made it clear that one of the main objectives of the Bill is the privatisation of the 500,000 acres of land at present owned by the water authorities? My hon. Friend's fears about the future of recreation and access are therefore justified because the lands will obviously be flogged off to make money for the water authorities.
      Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is absolutely right. The clear object of the Bill is to make money for the shareholders because they will face great difficulties with the European Community and the standards of water purity and sea pollution. The only way for this rip-off to take place and for shares to be sold is by selling the land. I mentioned Devon, Somerset and north Yorkshire. Conservative Members should not think that I am talking about Labour-controlled councils because those are all solidly Conservative controlled, but they are worried about the Bill, as is the Association of County Councils.
      I do not want to delay the debate because we face the guillotine, but I plead with the Minister to accept amendment No. 119.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I wish to draw the attention of the House to my amendment No. 110 in this series. The amendment draws attention to the necessity
      "To preserve and maintain public rights of access to areas of woodland, mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff, water areas including reservoirs, or foreshore and other places of natural beauty."
      It is essential that that right should be continued and protection given to those areas after privatisation has taken place, as I fear that it may.
      I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an anachronism in my constituency, about 10 per cent. of which, under the Bill, is to be flogged off. We have heard that the Elan valley is apparently to be given some protection. I certainly welcome that because it is an improvement on the present position. That area is particularly important because, since the Water Act 1973 and the rights that have been mentioned came into being, there have been developments at Llanwrtyd Wells in my constituency, to which thousands of walkers on international walks have been attracted. Very often, at the weekend, there are 300 or 400 of them using the rights of way in that area. A tourist industry of considerable importance has grown up in this remote area. People from as far away as New Zealand come to walk there and enjoy the Welsh countryside. It is important that they should have continued access to this part of the world. I assume that continued access will be ensured, partly through the
      1110
      Birmingham Corporation Act 1892. The Victorians were far-sighted enough to ensure that people would have the right to enjoy the countryside and fresh air.
      We should compare that area with another part of my constituency—the 21,000 acres that the Welsh water authority owns in the Brecon Beacons national park, where there are a number of reservoirs at Talybont, Dolygaer, Pontsticill, Taf Fechan and other places. At present, people have access in those places to go to the foreshore for fishing and other recreational pursuits. There are rights of way through the area, which is on the edge of an area with a population of 1 million people in south Wales—mainly in Glamorgan—who make great use of those access facilities at the weekend for their enjoyment. If subsidiary companies are formed for recreational purposes by, for example, Welsh Water plc, it is absolutely vital that access continues to be allowed to that land.
      I am pleased that Government amendments Nos. 61 and 62—I realise that we are not discussing them now—indicate a considerable change of heart on the part of the Government in relation to allowing more access, which I welcome. However, we must also consider charging, and the desirability to have regard, as the Bill puts it——
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: I entirely sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he not aware that substantial safeguards on precisely the points that he raises are already built into the Bill?
      Mr. Livsey: The Bill contains some safeguards, but we have tabled our amendments because those safeguards are insufficient. That is certainly the view of many people outside the House. There is no doubt that the interpretation of the Bill, after privatisation, will be vital in determining whether people will have ready access to the land. Concern has been expressed by the Countryside Commission, the National Trust and the national parks about such problems. It is to be hoped that the Government will accept the amendments as improvements to their own and ensure cast-iron guarantees of access so that people may continue to enjoy areas that they have previously enjoyed, especially areas of outstanding natural beauty.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall press the amendments of my hon. Friends because I am keen to ensure that conflict does not return to the countryside. As a young person I went out walking and climbing from Manchester virtually every Sunday for 10 years. I remember the end of an era when there was considerable conflict between walkers and climbers, and between gamekeepers and water bailiffs. Fortunately, most of that conflict has disappeared from the countryside as a result of access agreements and a more enlightened attitude by water authorities and others.
      I still remember when we had lumps of peat thrown at us by one of the water bailiffs who wanted us off the rock climb. I also remember when we were taken off Stockport water authority land on the banks of Kinder Scout simply because we brewed up with a primus stove. I shall not recount to the House all the tricks that we got up to as teenagers in order to get revenge on the water bailiffs and gamekeepers, but certainly some of them had nothing to do with maintaining water purity.
      I do not believe that the Government deliberately want to bring back an era of conflict in the countryside, but I warn them that if sufficient people find that their rights of

      1111
      access to the countryside have been diminished, they will fight hard to protect them. I fear that, perhaps as a result of the misdrafting of the Bill, or the Government's failure to put the case clearly, there is much confusion. Many people feel that, as a result of that confusion, and the inaccuracies within the Bill, that conflict may return. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the Bill—however bad —is clear and does not encourage future conflict in the countryside. People's rights of access should be clearly set out.
      I am concerned about three major points. First, existing rights should be absolutely guaranteed for the future. Secondly, anything that people have previously enjoyed free of charge should not be charged for. Thirdly, the legislation should encourage the establishment of new rights.
      5 pm
      There will not be much problem about recorded public rights of way, but in many parts of the country there are many public rights of way which have never been recorded. Although they might be put on the map at some point, on the whole no one has argued about them because they are de facto rights of way—one can see the path clearly—and for 10 or 15 years no one has stopped people using them.
      In the Peak district and increasingly in other national parks and in areas within them that are owned by the water authorities there are areas that are subject to access agreements which have played a major part. I want an absolute guarantee from the Minister that all such areas are protected in the legislation, not only in the context of the new water companies but in that of any subsidiary bodies to which they may give rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Minister claimed in Committee that the new bodies would be bound to protect public rights and that any subsidiary bodies or new companies resulting from changes of ownership of the land would he so bound.
      It seems that counsel's opinion suggests that the Minister was wrong, and we need to clarify whether the Minister still believes that his opinion was right and why he thinks that the legal opinion is wrong—if he does. We need a guarantee at the end of the debate that all existing rights will be continued by the water companies in their water activities and in any other use or sale of the land into which they enter.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): In order to assist the hon. Gentleman on this specific point, may I tell him that counsel's opinion, to which he referred, said that in certain circumstances the duty might not be effective. These limited and technical circumstances are being considered carefully, but generally speaking, if the undertakers continue to use the land transferred for their functions, the duties will bite in full.
      Mr. Bennett: The Minister said that the Government are reviewing the position. Is that an undertaking that if he cannot give us a clear statement today a clear statement will be given to the House of Lords where, if necessary, the Government will table amendments? Would the Minister like to give us that assurance?
      Mr. Moynihan: I made it clear that, as we have just received counsel's opinion and have listened carefully to
      1112
      the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and the Ramblers Association, it is right and proper that we should consider the limited and technical arguments that have been put forward. If we see the need to return to the House and take the matter further, we shall. We do not believe that the position of the Ramblers Association, as set out in its press release, is accurate, but we accept that counsel's opinion referred to specific circumstances which we need to review in detail. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
      Mr. Bennett: The Minister has not made it as clear as I should like that he will table an amendment, but I think the gist of his point is that, if necessary, he will. I am sure that the other place will examine it carefully.
      The Minister talked about water undertaking activities. The bodies about which I am concerned, such as the Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, want a guarantee that the duty will apply not only to land retained for water gathering but to land which may be passed on to other bodies. In large areas in the west Pennines, where water gathering was established in the last century, water-gathering activities are no longer particularly economic because of the better use of water and the bigger reservoirs at Hirlmere, Hawes water and Vyrnwy have come into use. Some of those reservoirs might be taken out of use—I know that there are safety arguments, and so on. I am determined that not only the water authorities but any bodies to which they dispose of land will have this duty.
      Access must be free. I hope the Minister will make it absolutely clear that there is no intention to charge people who go on foot. I accept the argument for charging for some services such as car parking.
      I want to press the Minister on new rights. I am sure that he is well aware that one of the problems, particularly in the Pennines but also elsewhere, is that the overuse of some footpaths has led to severe problems of erosion. There is a great deal of concern about the Pennine way, some sections of which have to be protected artificially because of the large numbers of people who use them. One of the best ways of protecting paths is to encourage people to use alternatives. By developing access agreements the Peak District national park has enabled people to go to areas such as Kinder Scout, where they can choose where to go rather than follow a specific footpath that might suffer dramatically from erosion.
      I want a guarantee that there will be clear powers to ensure that new access agreements can be created on water land in cases in which that would clearly be in the interests of the conservation of footpaths or of an area in general. There must be no charges for such access agreements. All the national parks make the point that the Government have not been overgenerous with their funding, and that there are problems with paying for access agreements. At the moment the Peak district park makes only modest payments, which usually go to local farmers rather than to the water authority or the large landowners. I should not like any restrictions on the development of new access agreements because the new water companies demanded large sums of money.
      I want a guarantee that the Minister will introduce clarity and ensure that conflict in the countryside does not arise. I want him to guarantee that existing rights are preserved and that no system of charges will be

      1113
      introduced. There must be a system that will ensure that new and greater access to the areas that are held by the water companies can be opened up.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the opinion of the Ramblers Association's Queen's counsel firmly stated that the duties imposed in the Bill for recreation and access did not relate to land whoever it was owned by. The opinion was not quite as firm or all-embracing as that, although I agree with the hon. Lady that certain aspects are not properly protected in the Bill. I arranged the meeting between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the Ramblers Association and its QC at which the association expressed its worries.
      I thank the Government for responding to the anxieties of the public, especially in areas such as my constituency, which has been mentioned several times, and for tabling amendments to meet some of those concerns.
      I support what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said; we want to know that the Bill will protect not only the legal and statutory rights of access but all existing rights that have been agreed on a voluntary or permissive basis by the water authorities, sometimes in a public-spirited way to which I pay tribute. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want people to be charged for access to the national parks or to have little people with machines asking for money for tickets as climbers come down a steep limestone face in the Peak district. There is a case for some areas of the countryside to be freely available—by which I mean, at no charge—to members of the public.
      It would greatly help to increase public support for the Bill if Ministers made it clear that these rights and freedoms will be protected. If they are not fully protected by the amendments tabled today, which I welcome—I am pleased that my hon. Friend intervened to say that Ministers are still considering the legal advice that has been given to them—I hope that steps will be taken in another place completely to clarify the issues so that the public do not feel that the Bill removes current rights to access.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: As I am sure you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we live in the age of the looter. Public assets which have been accumulated over 100 years due to the foresight of our ancestors are now, in every walk of life—and water is only the latest —being auctioned off to the highest bidder and the proceeds used to fuel the illusion of prosperity. No doubt the perpetrators will be in Bermuda by the time the roof comes in, and the Labour party will then be called in to clear up the mess.
      When this subject was raised in Committee, Tory Members became quite agitated when I said that behind the urbane and civilised men and one or two women on the Conservative Benches lay every species of spiv and con man known to civilisation. I know that some Conservative Members care about what happens to the great land assets owned by the water authorities, but they are very few. That must be our conclusion, particularly because only one Conservative Back Bencher has had anything to say on
      1114
      this issue today. Increasingly we are falling to the tender mercies of the estate agents and accountants who clutter up the Conservative Benches.
      What is about to happen to the half a million or more acres of some of our most beautiful landscape owned by the water authorities is, I am afraid, a result of the actions of Conservative Members. There have been many references to beautiful landscape in the Peak district national park, in Thirlmere and in Kielder which is within the Northumbrian water authority area close to my constituency. Reference was also made to the Elan valley.
      Yesterday the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) entered special pleas for exemption from proposed development for land in or near his constituency. It would be easier to take such pleas seriously if there was a general concern on the Conservative Benches about what might happen. It is a little distasteful to hear Conservative Members asking for exemptions or assurances from Ministers simply for a particular landscape or site which happens to be close to their constituents and their own backyards. We would like to see the measures in clause 7 addressed to all the assets and not just to those where personal concerns are involved.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, did you see that excellent "Panorama" programme on Monday evening about the impending privatisation of the water authorities? It contained an interview with a farmer in Thirlmere in the Lake district. He was a water authority tenant who had farmed there all his life, as had his father before him. The father was recovering from cancer and was worried whether the tenancy would survive to be handed on to his son. He was also concerned to know whether the cowsheds on his farm were to be handed over for development and turned into luxury yuppie housing. We may have thought that it was basic enough to get an assurance about this as it must be the easiest case in the world for such an assurance to be forthcoming. However, "Panorama" could not obtain an assurance from North West Water that there were no such plans. That provides a clue about the future and it must be matched against any assurances which we may receive from time to time from the Government Front Bench.
      All the signs are that those who are about to buy up the water industry and the land that goes with it consider the assets ripe for looting and can hardly wait to get their hands on it. Clause 7 brings us to the heart of the matter. It is a grudging acknowledgment by the Government that there are assets worth preserving and that there is something worth handing over to our ancestors.
      As my Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said from the Opposition Front Bench, and as many hon. Members of all shades of opinion have said, it is pathetically weak to use phrases like "having regard to", "take into account", "desirability" or "reasonably practical". The purpose of the amendment is to mitigate the great damage which we believe will be inflicted on the half million or so acres owned by the water authorities.
      5.15 pm
      The concern is very widespread. All the members of the Standing Committee were deluged by briefs from every conceivable interest. Only in the past few days, I received a brief from the Council for the Protection of Rural England which states:

      1115
      "There is no technical justification why the freehold of the half a million acres of land currently owned by the water authorities should be transferred to the new water utility PLCs."
      It also states:
      "There are currently no effective arrangements in the Bill to safeguard the existing public interests which are currently enshrined in all water authority land under section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Secretary of State's watchdog role over the clause 7 environmental duties is hopelessly inadequate, since he will only be able to intervene on a sporadic and post hoc basis."
      That is not a party political broadcast from the Labour party. That is the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England which enjoys the support of many people who, on most issues, take the opposite view from that of my hon. Friends and I.
      The CPRE proposes something more robust than is contained in the amendments. It wants to see all the land presently vested in the water companies handed over to the National Rivers Authority and administered and protected in that way. Our amendments are more modest in the hope that they will extract a generous reply from the Minister.
      Amendment No. 121 seeks to exempt from charges access on foot to water authority land. Amendment No. 119 seeks to bring all water authority land within the miserly protection proposed in clauses 7 to 9. We had a discussion in Committee about the code of practice provided for in clause 9, which is supposed to give effect to the good intentions in clause 7. The essential flaw is that the code of practice is completely unenforceable. It is totally advisory and no one need take the blindest bit of notice of it and all the signs are that that is what will happen. The most outrageous flaw—we have pursued the Minister about this—is that the code of practice does not apply to land hived off to subsidiary companies owned by privatised water companies. It will not apply to land which is sold.
      We pursued the Minister up hill and down dale over that. He wriggled a great deal, but we eventually extracted one or two points. He said that the code and the good intentions in clause 7 would apply to what he called all "operational land". There is no definition in the Bill of "operational land". We do not know whether that is land on which a sewage station or a reservoir is located. We do not know whether the definition is wider than that. However, we have some clues.
      Several weeks ago, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) was told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that 95 per cent. of the Elan valley—88,000 acres—would be regarded as "operational land". If that is so, it is quite encouraging. However, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that it is so. I suspect, as many of my hon. Friends and people outside this place suspect, that this rather pathetic protection will apply to a damn sight less than 95 per cent. of the 550,000 acres currently owned by the water authorities.
      We take note of what the Minister confirmed in Committee—that "operational land" would apply to 95 per cent. of the Elan valley. Other hon. Members have drawn the Minister's attention to the counsel's opinion and no doubt the Minister will want to comment on it. Our amendments are modest and do not do justice to the outrage that is understandably felt about what will happen to parts of our most beautiful landscapes. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Pike: I shall be brief because we want to hear the Minister's comments on these important amendments before we vote under the guillotine.
      Leaving aside the Bill's privatisation aspects, clause 7 and the related provisions, more than any other, have been the subject of lobbying of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. That shows the genuine concern that is felt and why, despite moves made by the Government since the Committee stage, it is necessary to make further amendments. The Minister said that he is considering legal opinion and may make further changes, if he deems that appropriate, when the Bill is considered in another place. I accept the basis on which the Minister gave that assurance, but I hope that he will also be prepared to meet representatives of the organisations that are expressing concern.
      Even at this stage, it is unsatisfactory for the Minister to give just this House and another place assurances about the Government's intentions, because they must also convince others outside. Even if the Minister does not recognise this, there is a credibility gap about the Government's intentions between them and the Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council, the Greater Manchester countryside unit, the CPRE, and the National Trust. I could rattle off the names of organisation after organisation and read out any number of comments from various briefs, including one from anglers. The Minister must convince not only Parliament but those outside who are actively concerned about ensuring that in respect of access to land currently owned by water authorities the status quo will be at least maintained if not improved.
      Many more people are concerned about the Government's real intention, having heard of the response made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in yesterday's main debate, when he said that one of the Bill's important objectives is the privatisation of 500,000 acres of land. We have said all along that that was the Bill's fundamental objective, and that the only way in which privatisation will pay is by people making money from the land they can acquire. The Secretary of State let that out of the bag yesterday, underlining that that was the Bill's main objective. Whether or not he did so intentionally, I do not know—but he did it.
      The organisations whose fears we are expressing will be even more fearful of the consequences of clause 7 if amendments are not made. If the Government are not prepared to move today, there will be even less time available for dealing with that aspect, because the Bill has only to pass through the other place. I hope that the Government recognise the genuine fears that exist and that they must do something if they are not to lose the confidence of people throughout the country who want to ensure that recreational opportunities—whether for rambling, angling, or whatever—are retained.
      Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are more than happy to meet relevant bodies to discuss the important issues that have been raised. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Sports Council, and a couple of days ago I met the chairmen of all the regional councils for sport and recreation, when we discussed those issues in considerable detail. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning met with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and other representatives of the Ramblers

      1117
      Association. We shall of course continue to consider representations, not least those on recommendations concerning the code of practice, which Ministers can still review.
      The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) reflected on my right hon. Friend's comments of yesterday evening, but he should have listened more carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks about land. Most national parks land is, and always has been, in private ownership. Ninety-seven per cent. of the Yorkshire dales national park is in private ownership, and—if one includes 10 per cent. held by the National Trust—88 per cent. of Exmoor is privately owned, yet one does not see that land desecrated and spoilt by undesirable development.
      It is an inescapable fact that proper regulation does not require public ownership. If it did, not one acre of land on these islands would be other than in public ownership. With planning controls and the proper regulation that we support and are providing, land can be as well protected in the private sector as in the public. If public bodies do not need land for proper public functions, why should they have it?
      The Bill preserves in full, in clause 7(2) and (3), the present obligations of water authorities to have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access to land and to put their water and land to the best recreational use. Those are broad and substantial duties, but in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning said that we wanted to consider ways in which they can be further strengthened, clarified and updated. Public access to the water authorities' estates is of great importance because the authorities hold in highland and upland areas much land of great environmental and recreational significance.
      We concluded that the general power in clause 180 to vary by order local statutory provision as a consequence of the Bill shall not apply to so much of such provisions as concerns public access and amenity. That is particularly relevant to the Manchester and Birmingham local Acts, and my hon. and learned Friend gave an assurance in Committee that the Government have no intention of using that power to revoke or amend the important provisions of those Acts, which provide for public access to the Elan valley and to parts of the Lake district and Peak district.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Forestry Commission already charges the public for access to some of its land in my constituency, even when they are on foot?
      Mr. Moynihan: I accept that, and it is vital that the flexibility that exists and has operated well in the past does not change in the future. I shall deal later with the specific subject of charging. My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, because to accept the amendment would be to lose the freedom to make appropriate charges, not least to meet the cost of restocking rivers with fish—an activity requiring much energy, effort and financial expenditure. If charges are necessary for that purpose, there should be no prohibition on their being made in future.
      The Ramblers Association and other interested bodies welcomed our assurances, but after further discussion on rights of way, we agreed that it is right that our firm
      1118
      intention should be reflected in the Bill. Some concern has been expressed about clause 7(2), which imposes on the National Rivers Authority and the undertakers the obligation
      "to have regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access"
      to water authority land, and about whether that provision should be much clearer about its application to permissive or concessionary routes and, further, to the important and significant right to roam. We concluded that it is important to amend the Bill to embrace all those rights, to ensure that, in future, not just statutory rights of way but permissive or concessionary rights of access and the right to roam are embraced. We achieved that by proposing an amendment to leave out the words "public rights" and insert
      "for the public any freedom"
      of access to make it explicit that we are preserving for the public freedom of access to the land in question—whether one is considering statutory rights of way, permissive or concessionary rights of access, or the right to roam. I very much hope that the two Government amendments that relate to this debate will be welcomed by both sides of the House.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Moynihan: No. I shall move on and rapidly cover the other points that were raised.
      The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) raised three significant and important points, and I shall swiftly respond to them.
      5.30 pm
      The amendments focus on the central features of the general environmental duties concerning conservation, public access and recreation to be imposed on the NRA and the appointed companies. I remind the House of the scope of our proposals. First, they preserve for the privatised industry all the present duties of the public sector. That includes the duty to further conservation and to put its water and land to the best use for recreation. Those duties are supplemented by a duty on the NRA generally to promote conservation and recreation. In addition, all the duties are made enforceable by the Secretary of State who is to take into account how far the companies have complied with the code of practice which we have already published in draft and which represents the fullest expression so far of what good practice in those matters represents. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds for arguing that conservation, access and recreation are inadequately covered in the Bill. The water industry will be subject to fuller and clearer obligations after privatisation. Those obligations are more substantial than those attaching to any other industry in the country in the public or private sector.
      In amendments Nos. 115 to 118 the House is asked to apply those duties not only to the performance of functions but to the ownership of land. Amendment No. 119 seeks to extend the duties to any successor owners of the land. Let me begin with the proposals that the duties should attach not only to the performance of functions but to the ownership of any land. The central question is simple. The general environmental duties in the Bill are special ones designed to apply specifically to water industry functions, reflecting their uniquely extensive impact on the environment through the collection and

      1119
      control of water resources, draining operations and pipelaying and sewage activities. The nature of those functions, and not any characteristics of the land in question, requires those obligations. What logic could there be in applying them to the ownership of that land? It would create a quite unparalleled protective regime for land, based not on any special quality or requirement of the land, or any pressures or operations to which it might be subject, but simply because the land happens to be or to have been in the ownership of an appointed company.
      Hon. Members can imagine the absurdities to which the amendments would lead. One can readily visualise small patches of urban land of no conservation or amenity value whose use for housing, employment or some other social need was for ever blighted by the need for further conservation and recreation in ways related to the performance of functions that it no longer serves. The general management and use of land outside the special functions of the industry are matters for the planning system to regulate.
      The same considerations apply to amendment No. 119 which would extend the duties to any successor owner of the land. As long as the conservation, access and landscape duties apply to the performance of all water industry functions, full and sufficient protection is afforded.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Moynihan: No, I cannot give way.
      The hon. Lady stated that "having regard to" duties are ineffective. That is wrong. Under that duty the water authorities have been opening up access and taking down fences since 1974, and, in any case, the Bill makes the duty fully enforceable by the Secretary of State. It is also irrelevant. Ramblers and climbers are further protected by the duty in clause 7(4) on companies to put their lands to best use for recreation. That is an unqualified duty, not a "have regard to" duty.
      The hon. Lady referred to counsel's opinion about transfers to subsidiary companies. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the opinion suggests that in certain circumstances the duty might not be effective. As I mentioned, we are considering the limited and technical arguments in the opinion, and if a technical amendment to the Bill is necessary, we shall table such an amendment, but, generally speaking, if undertakers continue to use any land transferred for their functions, the duties will bite.
      Finally, the hon. Lady referred to charging. Nothing in the Bill changes the present position. The provision in clause 7(5) exists simply to make it clear that companies, like water authorities now, can charge for the use of recreational facilities. That must be right, as that flexibility needs to continue. The scare stories put about by Opposition Members are quite wrong. For the most part, the water authorities do not charge but allow people to roam freely on their lands in the highlands and uplands. Quite reasonably, there are often charges for car parks and jetties, but not for ordinary access on foot. Where no specific facilities are provided, the levying of charges has usually been considered unrealistic and impractical. Without the amendment, that sensible and pragmatic position is expected to continue.
      I have touched very briefly on the main points raised in the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for not giving way, but it gives the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to respond.
      Ms. Walley: Because of the guillotine, there is not time for me to raise with the Minister some of the important comments made and issues raised in the debate. The Opposition wish to make clear three basic points. First, we want clause 7 to have teeth, and our amendments give the clause teeth. Secondly, the Minister tells us that he is currently having discussions with the Ramblers Association, the Sports Council and other bodies. Now is the time for action. The Bill will soon be the law of the land and, unless we receive some real assurances from the Government, there will no longer be any time for further talks.
      Access to land is an old problem which has been with us for a century. Organisations such as the Ramblers Association have been campaigning for proper access to land, whether it is in private or public ownership. We want there to be public access to all the land in the ownership of the water authorities post-privatisation. When we debated this matter in Committee it appeared that there was no difference between the views of the Government and the Opposition, yet the necesary provisions are still not spelt out clearly in the Bill.
      The amendments are very clear, and if the House accepts them, or if the Government give us an assurance that they will accept them in another place, we shall ensure that there is access to all the land, which people throughout the country have campaigned and fought for for years, and for which in certain parts of the country they are still campaigning, with the help of organisations such as the Ramblers Association. For that reason, we feel that the amendments are important.
      Thirdly, if the Government consider that it is not necessary to include our amendment which would remove the right to charge people for access to the land on foot, why does he not accept it now? Does the Minister envisage that in the future the new companies will not charge only for facilities, which would not be unreasonable, and that it will be in order for new companies to charge people to travel on foot over land which has been open for a long time?
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 61, in page 7, line 42 leave out `public rights' and insert
      'for the public any freedom'.
      No. 62, in page 7, line 46 leave out 'rights' and insert 'freedom'.
      No. 26, in page 8, line 21 at end insert—
      '(4A) It shall be the duty of a relevant body, in determining what steps to take in performance of any duty imposed by virtue of subsection (3) or (4)(c) above, to take into account the needs of persons who are chronically sick or disabled.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 8, line 24 at end insert
      `with the exception of access on foot by the public to the land'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 285.

      Division No. 130]

      [5.39 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Battle, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      1121

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Boyes, Roland

      Illsley, Eric

      Bradley, Keith

      Ingram, Adam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Janner, Greville

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Buckley, George J.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Caborn, Richard

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Leighton, Ron

      Cartwright, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lewis, Terry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Clay, Bob

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clelland, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Coleman, Donald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McCartney, Ian

      Corbett, Robin

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Cousins, Jim

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Crowther, Stan

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cummings, John

      McWilliam, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meacher, Michael

      Dobson, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Douglas, Dick

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliott

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mullin, Chris

      Fearn, Ronald

      Murphy, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Nellist, Dave

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Brien, William

      Foster, Derek

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foulkes, George

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fraser, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Fyfe, Maria

      Pendry, Tom

      Galbraith, Sam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      George, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Radice, Giles

      Gould, Bryan

      Randall, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

      Redmond, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Richardson, Jo

      Grocott, Bruce

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rogers, Allan

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Haynes, Frank

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Rowlands, Ted

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Henderson, Doug

      Salmond, Alex

      Hinchliffe, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hoyle, Doug

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

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

      1122

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Soley, Clive

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Stott, Roger

      Wilson, Brian

      Strang, Gavin

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Turner, Dennis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Worthington, Tony

      Wall, Pat

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wallace, James

      Walley, Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mr. Allen Adams and

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Dicks, Terry

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dover, Den

      Amess, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Amos, Alan

      Durant, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Favell, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forman, Nigel

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Benyon, W.

      Forth, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Franks, Cecil

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Freeman, Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      French, Douglas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gardiner, George

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowis, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gow, Ian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gregory, Conal

      Butler, Chris

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grylls, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Cash, William

      Hague, William

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chope, Christopher

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hannam, John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Conway, Derek

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hayward, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Couchman, James

      Heddle, John

      Cran, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Critchley, Julian

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Curry, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

      Holt, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      1123

      Howard, Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pawsey, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Raffan, Keith

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Irvine, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Irving, Charles

      Redwood, John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kilfedder, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ryder, Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lang, Ian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Latham, Michael

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lilley, Peter

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sims, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Speller, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Squire, Robin

      Maclean, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stern, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maples, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mellor, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moate, Roger

      Thorne, Neil

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trippier, David

      Mudd, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Needham, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Neubert, Michael

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Norris, Steve

      Watts, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wells, Bowen

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wheeler, John

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Wilshire, David

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wood, Timothy

      1124

      Woodcock, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 8, line 26, at end insert—
      '(6A) This section applies to any land which was owned before the transfer date by a water authority.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 298.

      Division No. 131]

      [5.51 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fearn, Ronald

      Allen, Graham

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Anderson, Donald

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foster, Derek

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Foulkes, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      George, Bruce

      Battle, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gould, Bryan

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

      Graham, Thomas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blair, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Blunkett, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boateng, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boyes, Roland

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bradley, Keith

      Haynes, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Henderson, Doug

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Coleman, Donald

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Crowther, Stan

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cryer, Bob

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cummings, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Leighton, Ron

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dixon, Don

      Livsey, Richard

      Dobson, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Doran, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Douglas, Dick

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McCartney, Ian

      Eadie, Alexander

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Eastham, Ken

      McFall, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Fatchett, Derek

      McKelvey, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      McTaggart, Bob

      1125

      McWilliam, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marek, Dr John

      Salmond, Alex

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morley, Elliott

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Strang, Gavin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murphy, Paul

      Turner, Dennis

      Nellist, Dave

      Vaz, Keith

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wall, Pat

      O'Brien, William

      Wallace, James

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walley, Joan

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

      Patchett, Terry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pendry, Tom

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, Brian

      Randall, Stuart

      Winnick, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Worthington, Tony

      Reid, Dr John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Allen Adams and

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butcher, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Butler, Chris

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amos, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ashby, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, Mr

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Colvin, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Conway, Derek

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Benyon, W.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Couchman, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Critchley, Julian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Curry, David

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dover, Den

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Graham

      Durant, Tony

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Eggar, Tim

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      1126

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fallon, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lord, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      French, Douglas

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gardiner, George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gill, Christopher

      Maclean, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Madel, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gorst, John

      Mans, Keith

      Gow, Ian

      Maples, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gregory, Conal

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Mellor, David

      Grylls, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain

      Hague, William

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moate, Roger

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hannam, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Harris, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mudd, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayward, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heddle, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Norris, Steve

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Page, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howard, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pawsey, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Irvine, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Irving, Charles

      Raffan, Keith

      Jack, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Janman, Tim

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Renton, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rost, Peter

      Knox, David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lang, Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      1127

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Thorne, Neil

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Speller, Tony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Squire, Robin

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Watts, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Wilshire, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Woodcock, Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question on an amendment moved by a Member of the Government up to the end of clause 9.
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 9, line 28, after `Council', insert—
      the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England'.—[Mr. Howard.]

  Part II

    WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SERVICES
    Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 30, leave out part II of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 102, in clause 10, page 9, line 36" after 'Chapter', insert—
    'and provided that no reference to the Monopolies Commission made in accordance with section 28(2)(6) in respect of that company is outstanding.'.
    No. 109, in clause 28, page 32, line 4, after second 'undertaker', insert—
    'or by any nominated holding company of a successor company or any subsidiary thereof'.
    No. 103, in page 32, leave out lines 15 to 23.
    No. 104, in page 32, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
    No. 105, in page 33, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
    No. 106, in clause 29, page 34, line 22, after `enterprises', insert—
    '(aa) shall have regard to the desirability of the ownership of water enterprises remaining under United Kingdom control and not altering in such a manner as to be prejudicial to the interests of water consumers or other industries the ownership of which is under United Kingdom control.'.
    No. 107, in page 34, line 26, leave out `that principle' and insert—
    1128
    `the principles contained in paragraphs (a) or (aa) above'.
    No. 108, in page 34, line 29, leave out `that principle' and insert `those principles'.
    Government amendments Nos. 141, 142, 94, 95 and 25.
    No. 96, in schedule 4, page 194, line 2, at end insert—

    `Public access to meetings
    7. In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which Act applies in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
    "(i) customer service committees established and maintained under the Water Act 1989.";
    and the functions of a customer service committee shall be regarded as public functions for the purposes of that Act.".
    Government amendments Nos. 31, 32 to 36 and 41.
    No. 143, in clause 46, page 53, line 40, at end insert
    `or to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations under this section by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause'.
    No. 144, in clause 50, page 59, line 11, at end insert
    'or to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations under this section by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause'.
    No. 122, in clause 51, page 59, line 23, after 'supply', insert
    'within the meaning of section 52(1A) below'.
    No. 123, in clause 52, page 60, line 31, at end insert—
    '(1A) No water shall be regarded as wholesome where it falls below the prevailing standard determined by the European Community in respect of Drinking Water Quality, whether or not contained within a Directive.'.
    Government amendment No. 63.
    No. 127, in clause 71, page 82, line 25, at end insert—
    '(4A) Any arrangement made in pursuance of this section may authorise a local authority to undertake works in the relevant area and in such other place as may be incidental to the area referred to in the arrangement and where it is expedient to do so to secure the efficient discharge of the sewerage functions of any sewerage undertaker.'.
    No. 128, page 83, line 11, at end insert—
    '(5A) In the absence of any arrangements under this section each sewerage undertaker shall in making arrangements for the discharge of their sewerage functions invite competitive tenders for the design supervision and execution of all works of maintenance or construction within the relevant area from at least three organisations, one of which shall be the relevant authority for that area.'.
    No. 131, in page 83, line 11, at end insert—
    '(5B) Where arrangements have been entered into in pursuance of this section by a sewerage undertaker and a relevant authority any such arrangements may be varied or terminated by agreement between the parties thereto and in the absence of an agreement the arrangements shall be terminated by either party giving to the other at least 12 months notice of termination taking effect from 1st April following subject to the provisions set out in (a) (b) and (c) below: —

    (a) the notice shall contain a Statement of Reasons explaining why termination of the arrangements proposed would benefit customers or potential customers of the sewerage undertaker

    (b) either party may apply within twenty one days of receiving the notice to the Secretary of State for a review of the decision to terminate and any such notice shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State has published the outcome of the review and

    (c) in carrying out the review the Secretary of State shall have regard to the benefit accruing to consumers as a result of the proposed termination and the financial consequences of termination on the parties to the arrangements.'.

    No. 126, in clause 73, page 83, line 34 at end insert—

    1129
    '(1A) The Director shall lay before Parliament in each year in which charges are fixed under this section a report setting out those charges together with such information as he may consider to be relevant in relation to those charges.'.
    No. 148, in page 84, line 5 at end insert—
    '(3A) When a water main or sewer is requisitioned or a connection is made in accordance with the provisions of this Act or section 34 of the Public Health Act 1936 the undertaker shall be entitled to charge the person or body making the requisition or requiring the connection in respect of each dwelling a sum (the connection charge) to cover the costs of any additional works required to ensure compliance with sections 37 and 67 of this Act.'.
    No. 136, in clause 76, page 87, line 29 at end insert—
    '(2A) Notwithstanding the generality of subsection (2) above, or of Schedule 10, regulations may not impose any right on a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to require any person to make any payment for the connection or maintenance or repair of a water meter installed at the undertaker's request or insistence.'.
    No. 125, in page 87, line 46 at end insert—
    '(dd) provide for optional arrangements for payments by instalments'.
    Government amendments Nos. 43 to 48.
    Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No.1 is an excellent amendment and has the additional merit of being quite simply understood, even by those hon. Members who have paid only fleeting attention to the work of the Standing Committee. The effect of the amendment is to remove from the Bill the whole process of privatising the water industry.
    Amendment No. 1 is part of a large group, which includes several other amendments in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 would require the Bill to include drinking water quality standards that met the provisions of the European Community directive. Amendment No. 126 is an important amendment, which would require the director general to give Parliament an annual report on pricing in the water industry. Amendment No. 125 is a small but significant proposal, which would allow people to pay their bills by instalments. Amendments Nos. 127, 128 and 131 deal with local authority sewerage agency arrange-ments.
    We also have an interest in the significant amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—amendments Nos. 102 to 109—which would have important implications for references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and other aspects of takeovers in the water industry.
    It is well known that the Labour party is totally and irrevocably opposed to the idea of privatising water—the nation's most fundamental natural resource. Privatisation has always been a bad idea, as is recognised increasingly widely. The two most comprehensive opinion surveys have been conducted by the BBC. The survey conducted by the Derek Jameson show——
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Oh yes; quality stuff.
    Dr. Cunningham: That is an interesting reaction. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not like the idea of the British people expressing their views. No doubt Mr. Jameson and his listeners will be interested to hear of the contempt expressed by Conservative Members. I am not surprised that Conservative Members do not want to hear
    1130
    what happened as 36,068 people recorded their opinion, of whom 96·4 per cent. said that they were opposed to the whole idea of privatisation. More recently, on the "Open Air" programme, about 10,000 people responded, and 96 per cent. of them expressed opposition to the idea of privatising the water industry.
    Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Derek Jameson show will be the touchstone of the policies of any future Labour Government? Is the bold cry of the Opposition, "We offer you government by the Derek Jameson show"?
    Dr. Cunningham: Of course not. I am entertained by the contempt in which Conservative Members hold the opinions of the British people and by the dismissive—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members seemed to laugh contemptuously at the opinions of the British people. They may laugh on the other side of their faces before too long because, as the arrangements unfold, a significant and steady trend of opinion can be seen that is opposed to the Government's proposals.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The test of British opinion is in the ballot box, and the Conservative party is consistently returned to government by the British public. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not have the face to put forward misleading surveys by semi-qualified people broadcast on the Derek Jameson programme. Non-viable surveys are irrelevant and should form no part of a properly prepared and presented Opposition argument against the Bill.
    Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Lady prefers, I can read into the record the results of the Gallup poll, the MORI poll—[Interruption.]
    Miss Nicholson: I am quoting the hon. Gentleman's figure of 96 per cent.
    Dr. Cunningham: All the other opinion polls, too, show a trend against the Government. I agree that it is slightly smaller, being in the mid-70s. Is the hon. Lady saying that she is content with 76 per cent. opposition to the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Alistair Burt rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment; I have given way twice already.
    It is well established that British public opinion is implacably opposed to the idea that the nation's most fundamental essential resource should be a matter of profit-taking by private enterprise monopolies. I believe that the public will remain opposed to that proposal.
    Mr. Burt rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment.
    In almost 19 years in the House, I have never seen so much adverse press and public condemnation of a proposal. No doubt we shall hear that leading articles and editorials in the Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph do not matter either. However, we believe that those and other newspapers are expressing genuine concern about, and in some cases are showing outright opposition to, the implications of the proposals. The Guardian showed its concern in an editorial headed, "Wet and worrying." I do not know whether the

    1131
    Minister would describe himself as wet in the political sense—certainly not. He is, however, in a certain amount of deep water on this issue.
    The Times had the heading, "Flotation is heading into deeper water"; The Independent, "The wrong way to sell water"; the Daily Mail, "Why water charges are overflowing"; the Financial Times, "Water sale in a muddle"; The Daily Telegraph, "Privatisation water torture"; and The Observer, "Risk of drowning in water sell-off'.—[Interruption.] They are all very recent.
    The Financial Times said "Costly water, rotten eggs". That is absolutely ringing condemnation of the very idea of privatising the nation's water resources.
    Mr. Burt: All this is very amusing, and I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is amusing, because it reminds the House of the Opposition's reliance on ephemeral opinion. Will he think back to the considerable opposition at the time of the introduction of the measures to privatise the telephone service and British Gas and to deregulate the buses, which at the time brought tremendous opposition in much the same way as the hon. Gentleman has described? However, their success has now been proved. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that will happen with this measure?
    Dr. Cunningham: That is a matter of opinion. I would not say that the majority of people think that the privatisation of the telephone service was a wonderful success, or some of the other inadequate privatisations. People in the rural area that I represent do not consider that bus deregulation has been a roaring success, because they do not have a bus service any more. That is hardly success for those people. That is typical of what has happened in the rural areas. The suggestion of this being some kind of ephemeral public opinion is, too, a matter of opinion and remains to be seen. However, the evidence over the past two years has been that the public are implacably opposed to the idea.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when it was said in Committee that 96 per cent. of more than 30,000 people who telephoned a radio show were against privatisation, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) was overheard to remark that, if that was calculated on the same basis as under the Housing Act, it would constitute a majority in favour?
    6.15 pm
    Dr. Cunningham: It would be typical of the Government and their supporters to construe something like that as a victory rather than a defeat. Indeed, on the basis of some of their earlier legislation, that might be their intention.
    Privatisation has little, if any, support outside the House. I do not believe either that it has an honest majority in favour inside the House.
    Mr. Burt: What does that mean?
    Dr. Cunningham: It means that there is a whipped, arm-twisted, bullied and cajoled majority for it. [Interruption.] I shall tell the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that I would be happy to have a free vote on the issue, but would he? Of course he would not. I suggest that, before he makes sedentary interventions like that again, he thinks about the implications of what he is saying.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The free vote that matters is that of the electors at the polling stations. If the hon. Gentleman is paying so much attention to what the papers and opinion polls say, he should know that they have always said that they would much rather have this Government in charge of the country's affairs. The reason why the Opposition were thrown out of government in 1979 was their completely inefficient management of the economy—including the water industry, where investment was cut by one third.
    Dr. Cunningham: It is a blinding statement of the obvious that the Conservative party won the last general election. However, I do not believe that such issues as water privatisation and the sell-off of our national parks played a significant part in that general election. I wish they had. However, they will play a significant part in the next general election, and they will not be helpful to the hon. Gentleman's cause.
    Mr. Knapman rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way for the moment.
    The public are already paying an unnecessary and heavy price for this dogma-driven idiocy, as the recent increases imposed by the statutory water companies have made clear. The Minister of State has huffed, puffed, bellowed and cajoled about the matter. He said that he could not see any reason why consumers should pay more than a 10 per cent. increase in the coming financial year. We always believed that that was nonsense. I remember his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying during Second Reading that our predictions about the effect of this on prices were "absolute nonsense".
    Within months, our arguments have been proved right and those of the Secretary of State proved wrong. The forlorn and bedraggled attempts of the Minister of State to resurrect the Government's credibility from the fiasco— not to protect the public—have come to naught. He has tried to make a virtue of the fact that the average price increase for 12 million consumers will be 22 per cent. in the coming financial year.
    The Minister of State looks somewhat puzzled. He looks as though all this is new to him. An increase of 22 per cent. is three times the rate of inflation. There has been an attempt to present this debacle of policy as a great victory for consumers.
    Mr. Howard rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment.
    I wrote to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister about the connection between privatisation and increased charges. The Secretary of State got into a bit of a lather today and said that what I was saying in that letter was not true. I was, however, quoting the West Kent water company. The management of that statutory company —one of those paragons of rectitude often paraded from the other side of the House as role models for how to manage the water industry—told every one of its consumers that a 21p in the pound increase was being dunned on them as a direct consequence of the Government's privatisation proposals.
    Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that that reinforces the need for the regulatory structure that we are providing in the Bill? Does he not recognize

    1133
    that those companies operate under an out-of-date system, with inadequate regulation that was untouched by the Opposition when they were in power?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course it was untouched, because those companies were not levying increases of 42 per cent. For the Minister of State to propose that private enterprise is necessary for the regulation of prices is the most incredibly stupid argument for the market that I have ever heard. To say that we must have private enterprise so that we can have price controlsis economic illiteracy. As an act of kindness to the Minister, I suggest that he would do far better to keep his head down and keep quiet about this.
    I have the Daily Mail with me, which is the most implacably loyal supporter of the Conservative Government through thick and thin whatever happens, but it says of the Minister of State and his huffing and puffing and bluster about price increases:
    "Ministerial anger over this is bluster and humbug."
    Mr. Howard: Never mind what the Daily Mail says; does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if one has monopolies in the private sector, they should be properly regulated? Part of that proper regulation should be price control of precisely the kind that we shall put in place as a result of the Bill's provisions.
    Dr. Cunningham: But the point is that we should not have private monopolies in the first place. What is the possible justification for leaving consumers to the mercy of private, cosseted, protected monopoly power?
    Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way.
    We shall be faced with private monopolies with unprecedented powers in the British economy, from which consumers will have no escape. They will have no choice, unless, of course, they take the advice of the Secretary of State who said, "Yes of course they have a choice—they can buy Perrier." I cannot see people in Durham watering their leeks with Perrier or washing their greyhounds in it or anybody bathing their grandma in it. Of course consumers have no choice; the Minister knows that full well. Public Finance and Accountancy of 17 March was right to describe privatisation—I forgive it the pun—in this way:
    "Sluice gates open for water charges."
    That is the consequence for consumers of the Government's proposals and the Minister knows it.
    It is bad enough that water consumers should be taxed in this way to pay for Conservative party dogma in the face of all reasonable and reasoned arguments, but the environment too will pay a heavy price as a consequence of privatisation.
    We believe that the whole idea of water privatisation is nonsense, and I believe that the public share our view. Water is inevitably a natural monopoly, essential to life, to health and to well-being. It should not be an object for profiteering. The Prime Minister's comparison between the water supply and the food industry is offensive.
    People have no choice about needing water and they have no option about from where they get it, but they have all sorts of choices and options about where they can buy their food—they can even grow it themselves. It is insulting to millions of people throughout the country to say that the things are the same and that therefore there is
    1134
    a case for making water the subject of profit taking and private monopoly powers. The private monopolies will not face any market forces, and there will be no competition in the sense that people talk about private enterprise creating such competition. There will be no private enterprise, because the private monopoly will be protected from the market simply because no market will exist.
    The Government's notion of comparative competition is a half-baked idea which has been dreamed up to try to give the privatisation some cloak of respectability, but no one has any difficulty in seeing through it.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about private monopoly. Why then did the Labour Government do nothing about the statutory private water companies from which I and many other people draw their water supply? Their prices were not controlled by the Labour Government, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest that those prices were not put up enough. How does he suggest that a Labour Government would get the required investment? In Committee, he accepted that a large amount of new investment is necessary, but who would he get to pay for it?
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but his compendium interventions with multiple questions are difficult to answer in total. I do not like Conservative Members' allusions to "private" water companies. They are not private enterprise water companies, but statutory, regulated water companies. We did not do anything about them—to paraphrase what the hon. Gentleman has said—because we did not believe there was a significant problem. They supply about 25 per cent. of consumers and, in the circumstances that then prevailed, they did a reasonable job.
    The hon. Gentleman is aware that I recognise that major investment is required to improve drinking water quality, to protect and enhance the environment and to eliminate pollution. The hon. Gentleman was upstairs with us for weeks on end, and he knows that there was no argument about that. The argument is whether such improvements are best controlled, directed and planned as part of a national policy, which is open and accountable, with national objectives under Government and public control, or whether it is better done by private enterprise monopoly power exercised in secret, with the public having little or no impact on the matter. In that case, the public would have little say in what happens and nowhere else from which to receive their water. There is a wide gulf of opinion about the way in which such things are managed, but there is no argument about the need for investment.
    We believe that we are far more likely to achieve sustained, coherent, strategically planned and coordinated investment if such matters are subject to public policy rather than to private enterprise policy. That is the great political difference between the opposition parties and those who support the Bill. I am sorry that I rehearsed all of that again at some length, but——
    Mr. Howard: Was it part of such a coherent, planned strategic policy that investment in sewerage was cut by 50 per cent. by the previous Labour Government?
    Dr. Cunningham: We had numerous exchanges about this in Committee. I read the figures into the record last

    1135
    night. Total capital investment in the water industry during the Labour Government's period of office was, on a yearly average, higher than the yearly average during the nine years of this Government's office. That investment was made in different economic circumstances. Expenditure was not cut and the Minister need only look at the water statistics published by the Water Authorities Association to see that.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.
    Dr. Cunningham: That does answer the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.
    Mr. Howard rose——
    Dr. Cunningham: I have given way to the Minister three or four times.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.
    Dr. Cunningham: I have answered the question, and I will not give way again. The Minister can no doubt use different figures to try to prove his point. I am talking about total capital investment over a five-year period in the water industry.
    6.30 pm
    The Government have argued that, by passing the nation's water resources into the hands of protected private monopolies, efficiency will improve. Let us test that claim. The arguments for the market and for private enterprise have been that competition and market forces —the need to be in the lead, and the challenge of other providers of goods and services—drive efficiency. None of those will exist in the circumstances that the Government are creating in this case. That is clear beyond doubt, so none of the alleged creators of efficiency in a free market will impinge on the private water monopolies. The Government claim does not stand up.
    It is argued that water authorities will not only be able to borrow freely but that they will invest more when they are privatised. In fact, it is cheaper for the regional water authorities to borrow from the national loans fund than it will he for them to borrow in the open market. Immediately, therefore, it will he more expensive for them to borrow to finance their investment.
    The Secretary of State has said, not once but often, that these protected private monopolies will be given immunity from prosecution if they pollute the environment. Hence, pressure on them to invest and improve and be more protective of the environment is being knocked away before they even exist. From where will the efficiency come? How will there be a drive for greater investment? What will direct, control and motivate all of that?
    These protected private monopolies will face a dilemma. They will have to keep their shareholders and investors happy and achieve the necessary returns and dividends, and pay the directors' fees and all the other paraphernalia of additional expense, and at the same time invest in long-term matters of environmental protection and pollution control, on which the pay-back periods will stretch far into the future. We think we know where their final choice will rest. It will be to keep their shareholders happy and pay dividends at the expense of consumers and at the expense of investment to protect the environment.
    1136
    It is argued that the new system of regulation will protect consumers, but the director general will have no part in the initial price-fixing, and it will take at least 10 years for his system to have any significant effect. Privatisation, it is argued, will release the industry from political control. Yet the Secretary of State will fix the original prices, and thereafter they may be reviewed after five years.
    The Government will try to palm off the shares to a few million people whom they believe will want to take them up. I do not think there will be a very positive response to a flotation of the water industry, because people already see the difficulties and contradictions in the Government's position. The privatisation proposals in the Bill are a triumph of ideology over reason and common sense. They are costly, messy and deeply unattractive proposals.
    It has been suggested that involved in all this is the selling off of public assets worth about £27 billion—assets built up over years out of the rates and public investment —for between £5 billion and £7 billion. That sale will be challenged in the courts by a number of local authorities, and understandably so. That is another negative factor for the flotation, if it ever reaches that stage.
    We are seeing a great deal of public investment and assets being sold at a knock-down price. I have said many times that much of our priceless natural heritage and environment is being sold off in this way. I defy the Minister to tell me of any other national Government of any political persuasion who are putting large tracts of their national parks on the market, up for grabs. It is not happening in the United States, in the Federal Republic of Germany or in Scandinavia, France, Portugal, Spain or anywhere other than in Britain. That fact is deeply offensive to millions of people who are horrified at the prospect.
    We believe that the Government are proposing to ease this privatisation by writing off £2 billion to £3 billion of the total accrued debt of the industry, which is standing now at about £5·2 billion. We believe that they intend just to write it off. It will be another huge cost to the taxpayer. It is happening almost without a word. Indeed, I do not recall one word of protest by Conservative Members when that matter has been discussed. Do Conservative Members call that protecting the interests of the taxpayer? They have been silent on this issue, as they are now.
    It has become an accepted fact of life that privatisation and Government dogma is enough justification for these huge write-offs to take place at the public expense, and apparently another one is on the way. That will be necessary to give the industry some semblance of the sensible capital structure that it will need to be even remotely attractive to investors.
    Adding debt to relatively debt-free companies, such as Thames Water, to create the level playing field necessary to maintain the charade of competition is apparently to be another facet of all this. It means that customers of Thames Water, whose charges over the years have funded investment rather than it being financed through borrowing, will have to pay again. Thames Water consumers will have an additional tax placed on them. They will be allocated some debt. That will be their prize for privatisation. They do not have much debt now, but they will be given some. There is no real justification for that action. The justification is simply the Government's dogma-driven ideology, and that is the only reason why the Bill remains before the House in its present form.

    1137
    The proposals are about guaranteeing a rate of profit to the industry to ensure that investments are made, irrespective of whether any commercial risks are involved and irrespective of management competence. We cannot get much further from market forces and private enterprise. That is a signal feature of what Ministers are asking the House to accept. We are to have increasing prices to finance profit, dividend, corporation tax and investment up front rather than ensuring that the generators who benefit will have to pay.
    The Government's proposals are about the creation of cosseted, protected private monopoly power over captive consumers on a scale and of a nature unprecedented in Britain. There is to be immunity from prosecution and from market forces. These bodies will be protected even against takeovers for the first few years of their existence, regardless of competence and performance. In 19 years in the House I have never seen such a miserable, pathetic collection of incoherent proposals. If it has any sense, the House will throw them out now.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the importance of the delay before you called me to participate in the debate.
    I intend to support the Opposition on amendment No. 1. I see it as my duty as a Back Bencher to seek to improve a fundamentally flawed, unpopular and unnecessary Bill. One way of improving it would be to leave out part II. That has been dealt with adequately by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
    I wish to direct my remarks to other amendments. The purpose of amendment No. 102 is to prevent an appointment being made to a new plc where a reference is outstanding to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am widely supported in my view that we should introduce a pause while the MMC reports on mergers which are in progress after 11 January this year and before the new companies are appointed as undertakers.
    Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105 have an important purpose. They would delete the provision for, and all references to, the asset limit of £30 million below which references to the MMC are not made automatically. Since all water undertakings are monopolies, as has been pointed out already in the debate, it should make no difference in principle whether a company is large or small when determining the reasons for a referral to the MMC.
    Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108 also have an important purpose. They would add to the duty of the MMC to examine a merger in the light of its impact on comparative competition an equal duty to examine it in the light of its impact on the interests of consumers or other industries. Amendment No. 109, which might be described as an optional amendment, would have the effect of ring-fencing the assets of the industry at transfer for the purpose of a reference to the MMC.
    Privatisation of the water industry will place in private hands the 10 regional monopolies that dominate the industry. The 100 per cent. of consumers whose sewerage services are provided by water authorities, and the 75 per cent. of consumers whose water is supplied by them, are to join the 25 per cent. of water consumers presently supplied by private water companies. All consumers, whether currently supplied by water authorities or by the statutory water companies, will have supplies regulated on a
    1138
    different basis from that which obtains at present. All consumers have an interest in the Bill. I seek on this side of the House to represent the genuine concern and confusion of people up and down the country who are deeply worried about the Bill and its implications.
    The Bill will transform an industry which is a vital component of everyday life. All consumers, therefore, have an interest in seeing that the Bill is made right. That is what I am seeking to do at this late stage. There is much in the Bill which seeks to protect the interests of consumers —price controls, environmental controls and regulation by the Director General of Water Services. In the long term, it is the control imposed upon the creation and ownership of the monopolies which comprise the industry that will underpin the system and perhaps dictate whether the legislation—if it ever reaches the statute book—is a success.
    That control will determine the general approach that the monopolies take to business. It is intended to ensure that companies interested only in exploiting the potential position of monopolies to increase prices while cutting the quantity and quality of services, rather than those interested in providing a genuinely effective and efficient service, are kept out of the industry. That is the purpose of some of the amendments. It is thus essential that the parts of the Bill dealing with the acquisition and extension of monopoly powers are got right in the House. It is because of fears that the Bill as it stands has not got it right that I have tabled the amendments.
    6.45 pm
    My amendments would have three effects. First, the Secretary of State would be required to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission all takeovers and mergers in the industry rather than just those involving companies with water or sewerage assets in excess of £30 million. Secondly, the companies which would be deemed relevant for the purpose of such a referral would include all those which develop out of the industry as it currently stands, not just those which are water and sewerage undertakers.
    Thirdly, and most important, the amendments would require the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to have an equal regard for the interests of consumers and for other parts of the wider economy, as it would have to be used to maintain the system of comparative competition when making a recommendation on any case referred to it by the Secretary of State.
    The questions giving rise to the amendments were touched on briefly in Committee. At its 29th sitting, and at the end of the day, the Standing Committee found time to spend just 45 minutes discussing these issues. Because of the briefness and inconclusiveness of that discussion, the matter requires an airing before the full House. Without such an airing, the chance to put right a fundamental omission from the Bill, which would have serious and unwarranted long-term consequences, would be lost.
    The first matter is relatively straightforward. Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105 propose the removal of the exemption on referrals of takeovers and mergers where the relevant assets of either company are under £30 million. The Bill already embodies a concession: if the assets of either company involved, rather than those of the object of the bid, exceed £30 million, a referral is automatic. That concession is warmly welcomed. My amendments propose to take the matter to its logical

    1139
    conclusion and extend to all consumers the protection that investigation of bids and mergers by the MMC is supposed to afford.
    The need for such protection is already evinced by the Bill—hence the requirement for referral where assets exceed £30 million. It is already admitted that the possession of monopoly powers involves such risks to consumers that their investigation is warranted by referral. Yet for those whose water is provided by statutory water companies with assets of less than £30 million there will be no automatic protection.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and other Ministers have defended the position by saying that the operation of comparative competition, whatever that might be, will give consumers all the protection that they need. I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether that assurance can be relied upon. Comparative competition is a relatively new concept—untested and untried except in the local authority sector, with which the water industry is not comparable. Further, it is to be operated by a directorate staffed by only 80 people. That is hardly a sufficient complement to police 39 companies, given the other duties that the directorate has. In any case, were it to operate effectively, the customers of those companies would still be afforded less protection than those of other companies. Yet the last two years suggest that it is these customers who are, in fact, in need of protection, for it is the smaller statutory water companies that have been the object of the most sustained interest from what I can describe only as foreign predators. Surely it is in precisely those circumstances that the protection afforded by an MMC investigation is most needed, since foreign predators are those about whose track record and intention the least is known in this country.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the validity of what I am saying, particularly in the light of evidence that I have about the extent of French interest in the water industry of this country—the French having bought into some 16 of the private water companies already, and having increased the value of their shareholding dramatically.
    Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Winterton: I shall give way in a moment. I suspect that I shall be tempting the right hon. Lady—I should say the hon. Lady, though perhaps it is only a matter of time —in a few moments.
    The second matter—that of extending the investigatory role of the MMCs to the entire industry as it currently exists, rather than just to the water and sewerage subsidies of successor holding companies following privatisation —may be less straightforward, but in my view it is no less necessary. Throughout the discussion of this Bill—indeed, since it was first mooted back in 1986—there has been much public concern about what will happen to the assets of the industry. We are not talking just about the distribution and supply of water, or about effluent disposal, but about an industry that has immense, rich assets, which were built up over many decades, being paid for by ratepayers and users of the services throughout the country. They now total between 400,000 acres and 500,000 acres, much of which is not, strictly speaking, necessary for operational purposes and, as the Bill stands, will in many cases be outside public scrutiny after privatisation. There will be nothing to stop unscrupulous
    1140
    predators—by which, of course, I mean the French, among others—from taking over part of the industry and, while giving a perfectly good account of themselves so far as the water and sewerage undertakings are concerned, will use their acquisitions as an excuse to asset-strip other companies in the groups to which the undertakers belong.
    The rights of access and the leisure and recreational facilities that have been developed over many years will, in my view, be severely jeopardised. I speak with a deep interest, as there are in my own area of Macclesfield many hundreds of acres, owned by the North West water authority, which are widely used by the people of my constituency and—yes—by the people of Greater Manchester as well, for recreation and leisure.
    Sir Anthony Grant rose——
    Mr. Winterton: I will give way in a moment.
    I am deeply concerned, despite some of the assurances that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave in earlier debates both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I should say that in my view no Minister in Her Majesty's Government could more adequately, competently and intelligently promote the Bill—I have said that publicly—but the problem is that my hon. and learned Friend can present a good case only when there is a case to put. In this instance, there is no case whatsoever. That is perhaps a backhanded compliment, but it is intended very sincerely none the less.
    Sir Anthony Grant: On the point that my hon. Friend made so powerfully, I know his area and I know how beautiful some parts of it are. Does he agree, however, that there is a body—presumably known as the Macclesfield planning authority, or something similar—which no doubt shares his views and has the power to preserve the beauty of that amenity?
    Mr. Winterton: I shall be coming to that in a moment, but I will tell my hon. Friend now that I do not believe that the local planning authority has the necessary power to ensure that that land is not exploited or developed in ways which are undesirable to the area and are certainly not in the interests of conservation or the environment. In my view, the rights of access and the leisure and recreation facilities that have been developed over the years will be jeopardised.
    Nor is this just a fear of the more unusual groups— those whom many of my hon. Friends would describe as the bearded weekend ramblers—[Interruption.] I make that point merely to strengthen the views that I am expressing.
    Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the bearded ramblers in the Opposition ramble only when they are speaking.
    Mr. Winterton: I am glad that my hon. Friend did not accuse me of rambling.
    That fear is shared by many organisations. One of them is the National Trust, of which I am a member. Dare I say that it is shared also by the Country Landowners Association—not a notoriously Socialist-oriented body —and the Countryside Commission? The amendment would subject to the scrutiny of the Monopolies and

    1141
    Mergers Commission the takeover of any assets currently within the water industry and would thus afford protection against those fears being realised.
    The third and final matter—that of extending the remit of the MMC's investigation to include consideration of the effect of mergers and takeovers on consumers and on other parts of the economy—is perhaps the most important point covered by this group of amendments. As the Bill currently stands, cases referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are investigated by it in the light of the usual remit of potential detriment to the public interest.
    Above and beyond that remit will be a duty to examine the impact of a merger or takeover on the operation of comparative competition. That consideration stands above all others. That provision is, however, naive. It results from a blinkered view of how the industry may develop and what its links with other sectors of the economy are. Comparative competition may be well and good in theory but, as has been made clear, it is untried and untested in any comparable industry in this country. In theory it would provide a check on the abuse of monopoly power—but only in theory. It is in the nature of natural monopoly that one cannot be sure of the counterfactualisation against which it is to be measured. Comparing one natural monopoly with another can guarantee only that neither abuses its position more than the other; it cannot guarantee that abuse does not take place. [Interruption.] It is therefore illogical to make the maintenance of comparative competition a primary consideration to the exclusion of all others.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend should perhaps show a little more respect to one who has been in the House rather longer than he. This happens to be a very technical matter, and if I am referring to notes rather more frequently than I should, it is because I want to get it right. I can only say that I believe that in this instance I am reflecting the views of a dammed sight more people than he is.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Winterton: I will give way when I have finished this paragraph.
    The first purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to give equal importance to the examination of consumer interests. I trust that we on the Conservative side of the House are interested in consumer interests. [Interruption.] I will give way in a moment. It is entirely correct that the MMC should take an inside view of the industry, but it needs also to take an outside view.
    Mr. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend tell me first what he put in his own election address in 1987, when water privatisation was a clear commitment in the Conservative manifesto? What did he tell his electors then? Secondly, what is the role of the Director General of Water Services?
    Mr. Winterton: The subject did not appear anywhere in my election address.
    Mr. Bennett: Is that why the hon. Gentleman's majority went down?
    Mr. Winterton: My majority is satisfactory—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Bennett rose—
    7pm
    Mr. Winterton: No, I will not give way on a trivial, pathetic point which should not feature as part of this important debate. I only hope that my hon. Friend will continue to enjoy any kind of majority in his constituency.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I am concerned about the position of the Macclesfield planning authority. I invite my hon. Friend to put forward his plans for new, revolutionary and even more democratic planning authorities. I do not know where he expects planning decisions to be made. Personally, I believe that they should be made as close as possible to the people who will suffer the effects. I am delighted to have two outstanding planning authorities in my constituency—Torridge and West Devon. In addition, we have the Dartmoor national park committee. I do not imagine that it will be better to pluck those decisions away and to have them made here or by the parish council, the county council or even, for example, by Macclesfield town council. I am confused—[Interruption.] I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, with his keen and burning interest in the Bill, was here last night to hear the splendid amendments that were tabled and accepted by the Government and by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, whose virtues the hon. Gentleman has so adequately lauded. Those amendments have been accepted. I believe that the hon. Gentleman fusses too much.
    Mr. Winterton: There are times when I should not give way and that was undoubtedly one of them.
    Without such a view being taken, situations could arise in which companies may buy their way into the industry at no damage to the operation of comparative competition, but at considerable risk to consumers. A management with aims other than that of providing a public service at a reasonable rate of return may take over the industry. Performance would still be competitive, but it would also be worsened. In the long term, the director general's exercise of his powers could—perhaps even would—restore the situation, but in the short term a continual see-saw would be created in which standards would alternatively rise and fall.
    The task of the director general—this was one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—would become like the economist's pursuit of equilibrium. It would always be aimed at, but never achieved. Therefore, just as the economist goes for the pursuit of "second best", knowing that the holistic benefit is greater than that of equilibrium, so the remit of the MMC must be shaped with an acceptance that the market is not in a perfect state. By giving the MMC an equal duty to examine the impact of mergers and takeovers on the consumer interest, that can be achieved. That would prevent the entry of firms which have no track record in the industry, or those whose track record was poor. It would change the remit from one in which there was a presumption in favour of entry—on the assumption that if problems arose the director general could put them right afterwards—to one where there was a presumption against entry unless it could be shown that problems would be

    1143
    unlikely to arise in the first place. In many industries this would be unnecessary, but in one so vital to public health it is not the case.
    Firms which may have a tougher attitude to disconnections or which may be lax about health and safety or unused to the market in England and Wales should be weeded out before they are allowed to cause problems. It will be no consolation to consumers who may otherwise be adversely affected that the director general, in whom so many people seem to put so much trust, will have the power to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend has been making a most eloquent case but it seems that, whether he intends to or not, he is directing his case almost entirely to the one moment of consideration in advance of clearance. Surely he agrees that it is better to have the continuing regulation of the director general and the safeguards established under the Bill for the continuing conduct of the privatised authorities than to have one moment or gateway in which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could be invited to speculate on some hypothetical future conduct of a privatised water undertaking.
    Mr. Winterton: I am not unsympathetic to the views that my hon. Friend has just advanced. My amendments go along with that. There is an ongoing role for the director general in just the way that my hon. Friend has described. I am trying to ensure that we do not allow undesirable companies into the industry in the first place. That is the reason for some of the amendments to which I am referring.
    There is, however, a second reason for amending the remit of the MMC—to give it a duty to have regard to the impact of mergers and takeovers on other sectors of the economy. For such a requirement to be made explicit may seem unusual, but it is a measure of the extent to which one needs to be on one's guard. The past 18 months have seen an unusual flurry of takeover activity among the statutory water companies. The French have been buying in and paying up to 10 times the market capitalisation for companies whose financial performance has always, to say the least, been a little predictable.
    One has to ask, and I do ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, why that is so. It cannot simply be because those companies see an opening to increase prices and thus increase profitability. That is part of the story, as the statutory companies average price increase of 22 per cent. shows, but the high prices paid for the companies suggests that that is not the whole story.
    One does not have to search far to find the other reasons for those takeovers. It is by now widely realised that the water industry is asset-rich but cash-hungry. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said so himself on several occasions. It has many non-operational assets which could be sold off and many which, though operational, could be simultaneously developed to purchase additional profits. In Standing Committee the Minister said that that should cause no problems for consumers, and that the normal planning process would guard against unwanted development, but assurance requires concrete form. It should be incumbent upon the MMC to weed out what I can only describe as the asset-strippers. My right hon. Friend Lord Young and the
    1144
    Government did that recently in respect of Elders IXL and Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. I hope that they can do the same again in the future.
    Beyond that, the French firms pose a further threat that we must guard against. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows all too well, those firms are not only—or even primarily—water and sewerage undertakers. Their subsidiaries cover chemicals, construction and civil engineering. What is more—I say this especially to Opposition Members —they cover many functions cur-rently performed by local authorities, but which are shortly to be put out to tender in the compulsory tendering process. It is those areas on which the French have their eye as much as on the water industry. In the run-up to 1992 they will expand into civil engineering and municipal services.
    Mr. James Pawsey rose——
    Mr. Winterton: I will give way in a moment.
    That may not necessarily be a bad thing and to some extent it is inevitable, but it must be guarded against lest we end up with markets handed over to French cartels interested in promoting uncompetitive practices for their own sole and exclusive benefit.
    Mr. Leigh: That is pathetic.
    Mr. Winterton: It is not pathetic—it is a real threat to this country. It could be well outside the remit of the director general, to whom reference has already been made several times, to examine the issue. It should therefore rightly be the duty of the MMC to consider it.
    Mr. Hawkins rose——
    Mr. Winterton: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who is my neighbour and my colleague.
    Mr. Hawkins: I put this kindly to my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for giving way. I believe that he is giving an impression that he would not wish to give in saying that French firms are building a bridgehead here and when he talks about "undesirable investors". British firms are building a bridgehead in Europe for 1992. Can my hon. Friend say how the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would define "undesirable investors" in a water company if the people concerned were obeying the law of the land? I do not believe that my hon. Friend wants to give the impression that the French are unwelcome. The Perrier company bought Buxton Water in my con-stituency, and transformed it into a household name. I greatly welcome that.
    Mr. Winterton: It is sad that Buxton Water was unable to make itself a household name when it was independent —[Interruption.] It was in our household, among others. I trust, however, that I am not giving the House the impression that my hon. Friend sought to imply by his intervention. I am concerned that, unlike British firms which buy companies in America openly and honourably for the purpose for which they exist, the French seek to come here and take advantage in other ways, by the back door. The Minister understands what I am saying. Rightly or wrongly, the people of this country are sincerely worried about that.
    The amendments are designed to give teeth to the controls which will be placed on the industry after

    1145
    privatisation. I am not trying to destroy the Bill but to put meaningful, rational controls on it so that if it proceeds to the statute book it will provide the correct solutions. Controls may seem contrary to the concept of bringing market forces to bear on state-owned utilities, but it is not market forces which are being brought to bear on the water industry. It is private monopoly forces—precisely those which encourage bad practice and inefficiency.
    Mr. Barry Porter rose——
    Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way because I am about to sit down.
    It is amazing that the Government, who worship at the door of Adam Smith, are doing precisely what he advised against—exchanging a public monopoly for a private monopoly. He did not believe that it would work, and neither do I. The electorate are well aware of that. Strong controls of the kind that I have proposed must be put in place to convince the public that the Bill is not an ideological measure with no regard for their interests.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will seek to respond to my speech, not to destroy the Bill, but to make it better so that when the Conservative party comes to fight the general election in 1991 it will not be faced with the dire consequences of the Bill, but the legislation will be in force and working properly. That will happen only if the kind of proposals that I have put to the House today are incorporated in the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Obviously, many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. I should remind the House that the debate is guillotined and that long speeches are made only at the expense of other speakers.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Eric S. Heller: I certainly do not want to make a long speech. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that a document has arrived in my hands called "Supplement to The Engineer", dated 15 July 1892. The document is about Lake Vyrnwy and the Vyrnwy water supply to Liverpool, which was inaugurated on 14 July 1892 by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. It contains an article by George F. Deacon, M. Inst. C.E. Engineer.
    I draw the House's attention to this document because on 14 July 1892 Lake Vyrnwy was handed over to Liverpool city council's water committee, which was a publicly owned body. Incidentally, Lake Vyrnwy is still one of the main water supplies to Liverpool. The article states:
    "During the last census period the rate of increase in population"
    —in Liverpool—
    "was not quite so great as in the immediately preceding decades, but no less than 518,000 people within the city boundaries and 801,000 people within the area of distribution are now supplied with water by the Corporation of Liverpool. Such a population will, at the rate of, say, 30 gallons per head, require over 24,000,000 gallons per day, and to meet this demand the existing and extensive water supply works have become insufficient."
    The article then explains why the supply should be extended.
    1146
    I considered the document carefully and discovered that Liverpool city council, in relation to water supplies, goes back even further than 1892. The first Act of Parliament was in 1847. This is all about public ownership. When did that public ownership fail the people of Liverpool in regard to their water supply? People in Liverpool, including Conservative city councillors, have never argued that the Liverpool water supply was not good enough and ought to be privatised. That is a figment of the imagination of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister who, for some reason, have developed a crackpot idea in their heads that they ought to introduce water privatisation even when there is no demand for it among the people who are perfectly satisfied with the present water supply and who have been quite happy for local authorities—mainly Conservative controlled since 1847—to supply Liverpool's water. I do not understand what this Government are about, except that they want to get hold of the land surrounding Lake Vyrnwy in order to sell it off at what they believe to be a profit.
    I sat on the water committee in Liverpool—until I did so I did not know much about the water supply. However, I then realised the great things that have been achieved over the years, many of them absolutely magnificent. All sorts of facilities have been granted so that youngsters from Liverpool who had never seen such things could visit lakes and participate in water sports and other activities connected with the lake. What do the Government intend to do with that land—sell it off to their mates and friends? Is that what this is about? The people of Liverpool are not arguing for that.
    I could continue to speak about this document, which is truly magnificent. I am glad that it came into my hands and I shall repeat the details. It is the supplement to The Engineer, dated 15 July 1892, and contains many lovely pictures depicting how water was brought to Liverpool —including the route, which was a great engineering feat——
    Mr. Thurnham: I thought perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to intervene, as I am an engineer myself. I am sure that, in harking back to 1892, he will find that engineering then was nothing like engineering today. Does not the Bill adapt the structure of the water supply industry to the needs of modern society, rather than try to sit with all the old-fashioned stuff? If the hon. Gentleman were an engineer, I expect that he would try to introduce engineering that was designed in 1892.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I worked on construction sites all my life until I came into the House. There are engineers and engineers. For example, once when I went to do a job in an office, the office manager said to me as I was hanging a door, "Joiners are not like they used to be." I said, "How the hell do you know? Could you hang that door?" He did not know what it was about. I knew, because I was a trained carpenter and joiner. All joiners are not great; neither are all engineers.
    The document that I have shows what a magnificent feat of engineering this was to Liverpool. Is the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) suggesting that the engineers of that day did not do a great job? We have some of the best and purest water supplies in the whole country, and we should be proud of those engineers. They worked for Conservative city councils,

    1147
    which also built the docks in Liverpool. The councillors tried to further the interests of the people of the area so that, once they had the basic services under their control, they could expand private enterprise. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East does not seem to understand this.
    Certain public services should never be privatised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with private ownership of many things. I accept that some can be privatised and opened up to competition, but the basic services of this country, such as water, should never be privatised. There is no rational argument for privatisation —there are only ideological arguments emanating from the likes of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the drinking water that is supplied to the city of Liverpool. Is he aware that, to this day, 75 per cent. of the sewage from the city is untreated? Does he regard that as an adequate testament to the record of the public sector in this industry?
    Mr. Heffer: Just because it is said that is so it does not mean that we have to privatise water. The Minister knows full well that that is a separate issue that can be dealt with separately. Over the years, the water committee on which I served asked the Government for financial support to develop the sewage works, but we never got the full support that we needed——
    Dr. Cunningham: I should like to ask my hon. Friend to suggest that the Minister write to the Prime Minister to tell her that 75 per cent. of Liverpool's sewage goes out into the Irish sea untreated. She says that no untreated sewage goes into the sea around Britain. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Prime Minister that she is wrong.
    Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend knows that the Minister will not tell the Prime Minister that if he wants to keep his job for long. Saying boo to the goose leads to one being dealt with quickly——
    Mr. Leigh: That is what happened to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Heffer: I made a principled stand on an issue, and I am not ashamed of having been sacked from a Government for doing so. Most Conservative Ministers never seem to make a principled stand on anything; it is left to Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to do that. The day when we see a principled stand by a Minister I shall be delighted. It will give me new faith in the House of Commons and in the idea of Ministers standing up for what they believe in. However, I doubt whether it will happen.
    There is no case for privatisation, and no one can argue there is. The hon. Member for Macclesfield made a first-class speech against it, and I did not disagree with most of his arguments. The Minister, with his steamroller majority, will roll the Bill through, but he had better understand that the people of this country do not want it. Whatever criticisms I may have of the way in which Labour is conducting itself, I believe that the people of this country will roll the Government over and get them out at the next general election.
    Mr. Thurnham: The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) harked back magnificently to all the great features of the past, of which he himself is a magnificent relic. His thinking is stuck in the past and its
    1148
    great works; he does not look ahead to how we should adapt the structure of the water industry to the needs of a modern society in which one can separate the function of providing water from the function of regulating how it should be provided. That is the principle behind the Bill, and it is why I oppose the Opposition amendments and cannot support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
    Mr. Allan Roberts: If the purpose of the Bill is to separate the regulation of the water industry from the running of it, why is the National Rivers Authority going to sub-contract work back to the privately-owned water companies, thereby recreating the problem that the hon. Gentleman claims is being destroyed—that of the gamekeeper and the poacher being one and the same?
    Mr. Thurnham: I am satisfied that the National Rivers Authority will be a well-constituted body of 6,500 employees. That does not mean to say that it will he incapable of calling on resources from anywhere that it wants. The authority will properly execute its functions and if it wants to call on the services of others, so it should. It is only dogma on the part of the Opposition that would prevent it from calling on the services of other bodies, private or public sector.
    I must oppose amendments in the spirit of those tabled by the Opposition which strike at the heart of the Bill. My only criticism of the Government is that we have not been able to privatise the water industry earlier. Because we did not privatise water in our first or even second Parliament, a myth may have developed in the minds of the public that for some reason the industry could not be privatised. That is why public opinion is still showing so much inertia. Now that we are arguing that the industry can be privatised, it will take time for people to accept the idea.
    I do not accept any criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister or of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about all the work they have done on the Bill. It has been magnificent. If there is inertia in public opinion, it existed long before they came along to do the job that they are now doing.
    Dr. Cunningham: First, the hon. Gentleman must have heard the Prime Minister say that the Bill has not been well presented. Secondly, there is no inertia in public opinion: it is moving steadily against the proposal.
    Mr. Thurnham: Criticisms of presentation arise purely out of the ignorance, superstition and nonsense that are evident in the attitudes that we heard expressed by the relic from Walton, who is stuck in the past. If the public are fed the sort of misinformation that has come from the Opposition——
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman's past is already behind him.
    Mr. Thurnham: Conservatives can look forward to the future. It is only the Opposition who worry about the past, because they have nothing to look forward to.
    At the time of the outstandingly successful privatisation of the National Freight Corporation, the trade unions were so opposed to it that their Leeds branch persuaded all the employees of the corporation there to burn their applications for shares on a bonfire. I do not think that the work force in Leeds has ever forgiven the trade unions for that; it has cost them dear. That is the sort of attitude that

    1149
    we are fighting on the Water Bill and it is indicative of how public opinion can be wrongly influenced by misinforma-tion from the Opposition.
    It is said that we should not privatise water because it is a vital commodity. I remember that that was said about British Sugar. We were told that we could not privatise British Sugar because sugar was such a basic commodity. I have not heard anyone mention any problems about privatising British Sugar. Food and clothes are as vital as water, but we do not hear comments about privatisation in those areas. The Opposition want to ditch their clause four, but they can do that only by ditching it into a privatised drain and they do not like that idea.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Thurnham: I want to make progress.
    7.30 pm
    Before British Telecom was privatised, there were endless complaints about telephone boxes. People are now very pleased that they can use telephone boxes. British Telecom is far better now than it was in the public sector. Mercury exists as a competitor to British Telecom now. The pricing formula—RPI minus X—is working very satisfactorily for British Telecom. When we talk about RPI plus K for the water industry, we should not forget minus E where E is the efficiency factor which should work in exactly the same way as it has for British Telecom.
    The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is an example of the new designer Socialist who wants to ditch what was wrong and unacceptable with Socialist policies, but is not sure where to ditch it or what he wants to pick up instead. He seems to believe that a public monopoly is all right, but he cannot accept that a private monopoly should work as well. That is the difference between us. There must be confidence in the regulatory mechanisms in the Bill which will enable the water industry to operate much more efficiently in future.
    Mr. Spearing: The British Sugar Corporation was formed as a private company, although the majority of the shares were held by the public. As an engineer, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he reacts to the idea that all the sewers—their bricks, pumping stations and filtration plants—in Bolton might be owned by a private company, which, as far as I know, and unless the Minister can deny it, can be traded and controlled on the New York, Tokyo and Johannesburg stock exchanges?
    Mr. Thurnham: The thrust of the Bill is that we need more investment which clan be conducted more efficiently by the private sector, and the costs of that investment can be spread over several years.
    The fundamental problem about investment in the public sector is that the Treasury seems to count current expenditure and investment as coming from one pot which must be recovered or accounted for in the year in which it occurs. I am confident that the work which needs to be done in Bolton will be better funded as resources will be available from the financial world in this country and abroad.
    The key factor is that the costs can be spread over several years and funded by the workings of the RPI plus K formula rather than all the investment being recovered
    1150
    in the year that it occurs. That is why investment has been so restricted in the past and why the Labour Government had to slash investment. That is why investment in the sewers and drains in Bolton was cut under the Labour Government. They did not know how to fund the industry. They were in a desperate crisis with the IMF knocking at the door, and the country was bankrupt. The Labour Government did not understand how we could gain the efficiency that we needed by spreading investment over several years and by having a management which was accountable to the people who provided the investment and which ensured an efficient return on it.
    I have great confidence in the Bill. To appease public anxiety we must be very careful to set up regulatory structures which will function efficiently. The public wants to see that happen. It would be nice if we could do it step by step, because one of the fundamental improvements in the British economy has been the way in which industrial relations have been transformed through step-by-step legislation.
    However, it would be impractical to have a step-by-step privatisation of the water authorities. It might be very nice to start with the North West water authority, but it would not be practical to privatise one water authority one year and another two years later. If we are going to do it, we should get on with it. As I argued at the beginning of my speech, we should have privatised water years ago. We have allowed a myth to develop that the industry is a sacred cow which cannot be privatised. However, there is every reason for getting on with privatisation.
    This is complex legislation and we should not rush it. That is why the Government have taken their time to privatise the industry. I have every confidence about the way in which it is being done and in the work carried out by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. I am sure that the Bill will reach the statute book without any more undue delays. I am sure that the public will invest their savings in this basic utility with every confidence. I am sure that those who use water and will be accountable if they pollute it will also benefit in every way possible from the Bill.
    Mr. Livsey: This is a vast series of amendments, 38 as far as I can see, and they cover a huge area. I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on making a speech, like the hills behind Macclesfield, of true grit and determination. He put forward constructive ideas to the Minister who I hope will take note of some very constructive criticism of the Bill.
    This legislation gives rise to immense questions. I support amendment No. 1 which removes part II of the Bill. That would result in no privatisation of water and would be particularly constructive.
    The private monopoly which the Bill creates is inexcusable. There will be no competition as a result of the legislation. It seems that the Cabinet consists of the "Monopoly" generation. Clearly Ministers must have played too much "Monopoly" in their youth. They are obsessed with producing private monopolies under which there will be no competition.
    Privatisation will increase costs as a result of the legislation's duality. Prices will inevitably rise because shareholders will have to be satisfied while consumers pay more. The need to introduce higher standards in the industry will also create massive expenditure. It appears at the moment that consumers will have to pay the lion's

    1151
    share of that expenditure. Why are the Government or the Treasury not prepared to shell out some of that money to create the necessary investment to raise standards?
    Mr. Collins on "Panorama" on Monday estimated the cost of privatisation to be £842 million. Who will pay that sum? Will the consumers have to pay? The argument is that the statutory water companies represent 25 per cent. of the water industry, and those companies are already in the private sector. However, that argument does not stand up when it is subjected to close examination. Those companies are regulated and statutory. I believe that the Prime Minister does not understand the basis of the statutory water companies.
    The water prices in the statutory water companies have been kept low. They have been kept 25 per cent. lower than those of the water authorities because of their statutory functions. As a result of this legislation, prices will rise between 30 and 50 per cent. because the basis of the statutory water companies is being fundamentally undermined.
    Mr. Porter: Missing from the hon. Gentleman's argument is any understanding that what is required in the water and sewage industry is investment, which has been lacking under Governments of both parties for the past quarter of a century. The purpose of the exercise, as I understand it, is to ensure that private capital is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) reckoned that with all the regulations concerning price, quality, and the rest, the City will not be particularly attracted to investing in the new plcs. We shall see. If the City does not wish to invest, I am sure that the Treasury Bench will think again. In any event, the Bill is not about competition but about capital investment and where it can be found. It cannot be denied that investment has been unavailable from the public sector in the past.
    Mr. Livsey: We all agree that investment is necessary to improve standards, but investment can be made equally well if water remains in the public sector. Yesterday, the Secretary of State himself admitted that billions of pounds must be spent to put matters right. Why has the Treasury not been prepared to sanction such expenditure, and why have the Government adhered to such policies? The Government failed to make sufficient investment in the public sector of the kind that the hon. Gentleman seeks. That is a basic flaw in Government philosophy.
    Water is essential for life itself and is a fundamental necessity. It is a natural public utility and should remain so. The concept of privatisation is wrong, and the Prime Minister has admitted that its presentation has been inadequate. However, one cannot present a bad idea well, and privatisation is a rotten idea.
    A number of the amendments address the subject of charges, which will depend on the investment that will be required of the water plcs, which will, in turn, depend on measures taken by the European Community to enforce acceptance of its drinking water standards. That issue is one which cannot be dodged. Those standards are based on clear scientific principles and ought to be accepted by the Government as being right and proper in ensuring the health of the consumer. The Secretary of State told the House that billions of pounds must be spent to provide clean, wholesome drinking water. Some estimates put the figure at £3 billion, while others put it at £6 billion. If the flotation of the water companies raises £7 billion to £10
    1152
    billion, the Government's friends in the City may ask whether that is a reasonable deal for investors. I think not. The public cannot be expected to pay the whole bill, and some of that expense should surely be met from general taxation.
    Here is the rub. The Bill as drafted enables water plcs to fleece consumers, regardless of their ability to pay, to meet the cost of an investment programme that should be a public duty. The RPI plus K formula and the K calculation for price increases incorporate efficiency savings and a cost pass-through factor for consumers relating to additional expenses. That factor will be deducted from inflation but there will still be an additional amount to pay, and no one can argue otherwise. The prices resulting from those calculations could double every seven years, and, by the application of the RPI plus K formula, water charges could rise by 150 per cent. by the end of the century rather than by the 12·5 per cent. that the Secretary of State anticipates.
    The flaw in the formula is that efficiency is assessed only in relation to other companies, which are in any case monopolies, so any notion of comparative competition is a fallacy. One cannot have competition between monopolies that vary so much in nature—from Thames Water, with 10 million consumers and about 6,000 miles of pipeline to Welsh Water with only 3 million consumers but about 24,000 miles of pipeline.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that companies that are not of exactly equal size and having precisely the same resources cannot be competitive?
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Livsey: Companies will not be competitive in their own areas because they are ring-fenced and competition will not exist. One will not have six taps in one's house, with Perrier water coming from one of them and west country water, or whatever, coming from another.
    Particular groups of people will find themselves discriminated against as a consequence of privatisation, particularly in respect of disconnections. Last year, there were 9,000 disconnections, 2,000 of them in Wales. After privatisation, private water companies will be licensed. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the original draft licence has been altered in some respects, as it allows the plcs to draw up their own codes of practice. I know that the Minister has drawn up a code of practice on disconnection and has consulted on it, but the protection it gives is not sufficient for poorer members of the community.
    Water is such an essential commodity that no one's supply should be disconnected by a private company. The only way of ensuring adequate consumer protection is by requiring the granting of a court order; the Minister has partially accepted that view. There should be a three-week cooling off period before the court acts, because of the suffering that could be created if a water supply is summarily disconnected, particularly to pensioners, families in which there are young children, and the disabled.
    That problem will be exacerbated by the need of some people to pay water rates out of their supplementary benefits, particularly as water prices will rise after privatisation. It is essential that we consider the human

    1153
    aspects of privatisation as it affects the poorer members of the community. I hope that the Government will take that consideration on board, as well as the other points that I have made.
    Mr. Burt: I agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) about disconnections. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, in Committee I made a strong plea for use of the court before disconnection can be authorised. He was receptive and sympathetic, and offered to consider that proposal. I am still of the opinion that such a provision would be very helpful to the general presentation of the Bill.
    I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—as much as to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Although I do not always agree with the views of either of them, they represent a strand of opinion that is strongly held and sincere, and gives a contrary view to that presented by the Government. I also enjoy listening to the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who have raised similar arguments. I do not always agree with them, but the strand of thought which produced their arguments exists in the country at present and needs to be considered by the Government. I do not treat the straw polls of the Derek Jameson show with contempt, as I recognise that they tell the Government something. They tell the Government not that they are wrong, but that their message is not reaching people yet
    We start from a consensus, which was recognised in Committee by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) who said that Conservative Members were just as keen as Labour Members on environmental quality and the need to protect a clean, cheap, safe water supply. Everyone knows that we all share that view and want to maintain water quality. We differ as to how we wish to ensure a clean, safe water supply that is as cheap as possible. The fears that are abroad in the country have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It is certainly possible to be worried by yet another privatisation. Some months ago I would have sympathised with my hon. Friend's arguments, but since I have been on the Committee considering the Bill I have been converted and I now realise that the quality improvements in the water supply that we all seek cannot be achieved without privatisation. That goes to the heart of the argument of the hon. Member for Walton, as I shall explain in a moment.
    For my constituents, the bottom line is a good quality service. They are not bothered about who provides that service, but they are concerned about the service that they will eventually receive. The arguments about water are clouded by the idea that who provides the service is more important than the service itself. I and my constituents want a water supply that works and that provides clean water that is as cheap as possible. I am more worried about that than about who provides it.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he represent any rural areas? He said that he wanted the highest quality water for all hisconstituents. Does he agree that the cost of that water should be the same for all his
    1154
    constituents, whether they live in rural areas or in towns? He will probably be aware that, in addition to the increased costs of water brought about by privatisation, and by improvements in the quality of water, there may well be additional costs in rural areas to people living at the wrong end of a supply pipeline. Does he agree that in other privatisations, such as British Telecom and that of electricity, which is going through the House, the status quo is maintained and the same charge is levied on constituents living in rural and urban areas? Surely that is a fair point.
    Mr. Burt: I represent more town than rural areas, and the rural parts of my constituency are not far from major towns and cities. I believe that pricing policy is a matter for the water companies, as it is for the water authorities at the moment. But I am certain that the highest-quality water will be produced at the cheapest possible cost for everyone. My hon. Friend will be able to make her own arguments about water quality later.
    Some time ago, I would have been sympathetic to the arguments of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He takes the cosy view that we can have improvements in the regulation and quality of water supply without affecting the way in which the service is supplied. In a sense, he takes a lazy view—that we can have the best of everything without changing the structure of the industry. But that is not a fair compromise and it does not work. Only privatisation, the key to freeing investment, can possibly supply the improvements in quality that we need. That is why the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Copeland are wrong.
    I do not believe that the crux of the matter has been correctly perceived by Opposition Members, some Conservative Members and the public. They do not understand the connection between privatisation and the changes to regulation and quality control in the industry. Privatisation is vital because it will free the water companies and allow them to attract investment. It will free the companies from the political control previously exercised upon them. I pray in aid the views of the chairmen of the Water Authorities Association in a letter to all Members of Parliament about water privatisation:
    "Is it also the way to avoid the constraints on necessary capital investment which we have experienced under Governments of different political complexions over the 15 years or so since the formation of the Authorities."
    Mr. Elliot Morley: Is it not the case that the chairmen of the water authorities are political appointees, and that, contrary to the views of their employees and their commercial and private customers, they have supported water privatisation, even to the extent that every water authority has a contact point with a Tory Member of Parliament? They have been having cosy little dinners and wining and dining their contacts. The letter was a completely political statement. The chairmen of the water authorities stand to do very nicely out of privatisation, unlike their customers.
    Mr. Burt: During the proceedings on the Bill, we have been lobbied by a variety of different groups, each expressing its own point of view. The hon. Gentleman can take whatever view he wishes about the chairmen of the water authorities, but they are responsible for the authorities at the moment and are as entitled to express their views as other interests are entitled to lobby

    1155
    Opposition Members who have quoted them strongly during the debate. I am as entitled to quote other points of view as the Opposition are.
    The case for privatisation is clearly made when we consider the investment in the water industry in recent years. We have debated time and again the investments made by previous Labour Governments and by the present Government. I wish to draw attention to the trend in water investment under the last Labour Government and under this Government. When the Labour party was in office, it started much higher investment and continually ran it down. Opposition Members have consistently quoted the average level of investment, but the trend was that the level of investment continued to drop steeply and only under this Government have the tables been turned and investment has started to rise. While investment was falling, consumers were receiving some remarkable demands in increased charges. In 1975–76, when investment was falling steeply, the average rise in water rates throughout the authorities, not only the statutory water companies, was an astonishing 43 per cent. As investment was declining, charges were shooting up. At present, investment is rising.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: One of the reasons why revenue costs increased, causing increased water rates, was that under this Government water authorities have been forced to fund capital expenditure from revenue because how much they could borrow for capital purposes was restricted by the Government.
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. As long as investment for the water industry is in the hands of Government, of whatever complexion, and subject to Treasury control, there will probably never be as much investment as is necessary.
    Mr. Roberts: Rubbish.
    8 pm
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." With the best will in the world, the Labour Government would have liked to do more for the water industry, but because of the way in which they managed the economy and had to use the International Monetary Fund, investment fell so dramatically and severely that it almost irreparably damaged the capital structure of the industry. We are only now picking up that bill. It is vital to free the industry from such constraint and to allow it the money it needs to put into effect the repairs and improvements in water quality that we all want. That is why I believe there is a fundamental link between the privatisation of the supply of the industry and improvements in quality through regulation.
    It is important that the public should understand that the springboard of privatisation has challenged the myth that everything is better in the public sector. It has led to important new initiatives that will help consumers in the future.
    Concern has been expressed that private monopoly companies will abuse their control, so the National Rivers Authority has been introduced. Everyone agrees that it is a good idea, but no Government put it forward before. It was encouraged only by the spur of privatisation. It is because people are concerned that there might be abuse of prices that a Director General of Water Services has been appointed. It is because people are worried about the
    1156
    introduction of private companies that the consumer's charter has been introduced. All those benefits and improvements would not have been obtained without privatisation.
    The improvements to regulate quality which have been demanded by all of us would not have occurred with out a change in the regime for the supply side of the industry. That is why I believe that there is a fundamental link between privatisation and regulatory controls. Privatisation will provide the funding that has been so woefully lacking from Government investment over the years. When people understand that fundamental link, they will believe that this measure will be good for the consumer, the environment and the country.
    Mr. Keith Bradley: Following the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), in which I am sure he convinced himself of his arguments, the slogan at the next election will be, "We come to bury Burt, not to praise him."
    On the second day of the Report stage, the farce has continued of Conservative Back Benchers trying to digest the propaganda being put out by No. 10 Downing street. They tried to re-present the arguments to the public for privatisation, but re-presentation of the arguments will not work.
    I should say how much we support the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who expressed the clear views of thousands, if not millions, of Tory voters. I have received letter after letter from constituents who were not previously supporters of the Labour party but who have said that the Bill marks a clear change in how they will vote in future. The hon. Member for Macclesfield represents those views.
    We regard part II as the evil of the Bill. It must be stressed that, although we support the National Rivers Authority, it will not be as effective as the national environmental protection agency that the next Labour Government will set up. We must consider the pollution not only of rivers but of land and air in an integrated approach. We must not destroy the concept of integrated river basin management that we have under the current water authorities. Although under amendment No. 1 we are not ruling out the NRA, we must continue to express our concern that, without proper staffing and resources, even this part of the Bill will not be worth supporting.
    Time is short, so I shall deal briefly with three issues that arise under part II of the Bill—comparative competition, pricing policy and disconnections. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) devastatingly exposed the Government's arguments for part II of the Bill. It would be folly to try to compete with his excellent speech, which destroyed the Government's credibility, but it is worth reinforcing some of the issues about which we are especially concerned.
    We have clearly shown the flaws in the concept of comparative competition. There is no validity in the Government trying to compare competition in the food industry with that in the water industry. If people want to change the place where they buy their food they can move from shop or supermarket to obtain the lowest prices. No such choice will exist for water. It is a natural monopoly, and after privatisation the public will have no choice about which water plc they buy their water from.
    We clearly showed in Committee that the only way in which comparative competition would have any reality for

    1157
    the consumer would be if a tap from each plc were installed in every house and people could use the tap providing the cheapest water. We know that that is a farce and will not happen. In future, there will have to be not only taps from the 10 new water plcs but one running through the Channel tunnel from French water companies.
    In his more manic utterings, the Secretary of State clearly told the public that there was choice not because of the water companies but because they can buy bottled water or Perrier water instead of using water from the tap. That is nonsense to the people of Manchester who struggle to choose what food or fuel they can afford. As usual, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is holding his face in pain when an hon. Member is talking about poor, low-income families in Manchester. Yesterday, yet again we saw him trying to impersonate Alan B'stard—or was it the other way round?—when he was discussing the NRA. He showed that he has no grasp of the real world. He does not represent the views of real people.
    The Director General of Water Services is meant to consider comparative competition. We must consider the position in different water authorities and the problems facing water authorities such as those in the north-west, the problems of huge debt and inadequate investment. No comparative competition indicators, whether they are devised by the Director General of Water Services, the Audit Commission or whichever body the Government choose to set up, will ensure competition between companies. People will be tied to the problems, debts and investment problems of the water company in their area. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) want to intervene?
    Mr. Soames: Certainly not.
    Mr. Bradley: Throughout the deliberations in Committee, the Government advanced no credible argument to show that prices will not have to rise massively. They will have to rise massively to meet the investment required by the industry and to meet the potential investors' wish for a quick buck. They will need to make a quick buck if they are seriously to consider investing. When they see other privatisations, such as electricity, coming along, they will make choices, and when they see that there is no money to be made out of water, they will wait for the other privatisations.
    When we discussed the price rise with the Minister, he said that it would be between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. above that already in the investment plans of the water authorities. He has not been able to say how much is already included in the forward plans of those companies. When we pressed him in Committee, he said:
    "The programmes, to which the Secretary of State referred when he gave that estimate, are already out of date. That cost will be met by a mixture of charging and borrowing. Therefore, we cannot make a sensible estimate of the cost of these programmes. We have given the cost of the additional programmes as explained by the Secretary of State."— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 February 1989; c. 1207.]
    The Government can give no estimate of the real price increases required. We have only to study the increases in the charges of the private water companies to see that the new water plcs will put prices up by as much as 30 per cent.
    1158
    to 40 per cent. to meet the investment required and to ensure that investors will make a quick profit on their investment.
    Disconnections are an issue of crucial importance. When we consider consumers in constituencies such as Manchester, Withington, we must consider the thousands of low-income families, low-income pensioners and low-income people with handicaps and disabilities who have to manage on meagre benefits. We have to ask the Government pertinent questions about how they will handle the hardship that may be caused by such dramatic price increases. We have to ask the Government how people on income support or housing benefit will deal with the dramatic increases in prices. Benefits such as child benefit—a crucial support to low-income families—have been frozen. Prices will not be frozen; they will rise. Low-income families need to be assured that they will be able to afford the water coming through their taps in future.
    We need to ask the Government some specific questions tonight about disconnections. We need to ask, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) pointed out, why there has already been a dramatic increase in disconnections and how those disconnections will relate to the price increases after privatisation, if it goes ahead. If families are disconnected, how long will the Government expect them to survive without an adequate water supply to their homes? If there are disconnections, how long will the Government be prepared to let the community suffer from the increased public health hazard of families being disconnected? That will place an increased demand on an already overstretched National Health Service.
    We must ask the Government whether, if metering is to be the preferred option of the new private companies, the cost of metering, estimated at £1·3 billion, will be passed directly to consumers by being included in future charges. There will be an extra demand for water from families with children, families with handicapped or disabled members or families which have a large number of elderly members. Will the extra demand for water in such families, reflected through the meter, cause the Government to reconsider the pricing policy?
    If families are disconnected, as we fear, will there be any penalty on neighbours and friends who care for those people supplying water to them to ensure that they do not become a health hazard and to ensure that they have healthy, clean water coming into their homes? Should not the code of practice be a statutory code which covers all water companies and does not allow each separate water company to devise its own system, which will mean different regimes for disconnection in different parts of the country?
    8.15 pm
    Cities such as Manchester have a proud heritage of investment in their water industries. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it was the ratepayers of such cities who paid for the water industry and who were in the forefront of public health legislation to ensure proper water supplies in their homes. Such cities will not have those assets passed to the water authorities without a fight and without any element of compensation for taking away assets that have previously been paid for by the ratepayers. The legal challenge will come from cities such as Manchester to ensure that the assets that belong to local people are retained by those people.

    1159
    We must look at campaigns against privatisation, such as that in Manchester, which join together individuals, groups represent-ing consumer interests, groups representing pensioners' interests, groups representing conservation and environmental issues and the Ramblers Association. They are all joining together to say to the Government that they are not going to have this privatisation. Such campaigns will be successful. This Bill will be the Government's Achilles' heel, unless they decide tonight to support our amendments or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The Government should think again, because if they do not, they will be forced into submission by 1991.
    Mr. Knapman: I am extremely grateful for the chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I sat here for most of yesterday and have done so again for most of today. I appreciate your difficulty, as so many of my hon. Friends want to demonstrate their support for this excellent Bill. For that reason, I shall be brief.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that of four Opposition amendments under discussion two were unnecessary and two were undesirable. I hesitate to suggest that perhaps it is good that my right hon. Friend is not here tonight, but I do not know what he would make of the collection of Opposition amendments before us. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete the whole of part II—clauses 10 to 98. I hope that the Government will not be tempted to accept those deletions, because they would make some little difference to the Bill, which was considered in detail in Committee.
    I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome the creation of the National Rivers Authority. It is a giant step forward because it will be a far more effective regulatory body than any we have had before and will be guided by clear and comprehensive codes of practice. However, the Opposition amendments seek only to achieve two things—to dot the i's twice and to cross the t's twice. That would be not a step forward, but a recipe for inaction and would strangle the National Rivers Authority with red tape. The authority's success will not be measured in the tons of annual reports that the Opposition wish them to produce. The authority should be in a position to produce a quick response to problems as they arise.
    Having listened to Opposition Members, I fail to understand why there is any need for them to support the National Rivers Authority. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). In the first sitting of the Committee, he welcomed the creation of a National Rivers Authority. He was always good value in Committee and I believe that he also mentioned that he was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, which recommended the creation of the National Rivers Authority. He spoke of that with some pride and had every reason to do so. But I do not understand what value the National Rivers Authority has for the Opposition, because they oppose privatisation.
    The Government rightly say that we need to separate the gamekeeper from the poacher—in this case, the provider or water plc. Perhaps there is no particular reason why the National Freight Corporation should be a hundred times more profitable and efficient than British Road Services, but it is, and that is a fact. In the same way, the water plcs will be a great deal more efficient than the
    1160
    existing water authorities. The Bill provides for the separation of the poacher from the gamekeeper or regulator, the National Rivers Authority.
    Conservative Members seek a clear-cut division of responsibility—this is the crux of the matter—whereas the Opposition want to retain water authorities in public ownership. That is not a poacher-gamekeeper relation-ship; it is a two gamekeepers relation-ship, which is neither satisfactory nor practical. If the Opposition had their way, we would have two Government bodies exchanging correspondence. The two gamekeepers would soon get to know each other's ways and each other's foibles, and. with all the red tape and reports that the system would entail, it would be a recipe for inaction. The buck would stop nowhere.
    Mr. Morley: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I find it hard to understand why the National Rivers Authority should not be as effective when dealing with water companies in the public sector. Are not public health inspectors effective in their inspections of public abattoirs? Are not Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution effective in overseeing industries in the public sector? It seems to me that they are equally effective—there have been no complaints—so I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He served on the Standing Committee and will have listened to his hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talking at length about the importance of the Camelford incident. They were entirely right about that. It has been pointed out to them time and again that such incidents happen under the present system precisely because the poacher is not separated from the gamekeeper. That is the whole point of the Bill.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will actively consider the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I realise that he has much to consider, but it seems to me that my hon. Friend's amendment is worthy of detailed examination.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend properly referred to a system involving two gamekeepers. Can he say a little more about the additional safeguards built into the Bill—for example, the director general, who is the consumers' white knight? Will my hon. Friend draw Opposition Members' attention to the effect of the other safeguards in the Bill and agree with me that, under the Bill, consumers will have more, rather than fewer, powers?
    Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who has made those points a great deal better than I could. Whereas the consumer has few rights at present, the Bill provides a code of practice that not only describes the product that must be provided—wholesome water—but allows fines to be imposed when it is not provided. I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members should argue so forcefully in favour of high standards when they know very well that there is no chance of such standards being reached under the existing system of public ownership.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend tell the House who brought in the present system of water authorities 15 years ago? Is his memory really so short?
    Mr. Knapman: The 1973 reorganisation produced integrated river basin management, and I do not see how the geographical base of that—which is the important part —is altered by the Bill, under which the 10 areas are to be retained. The Bill merely seeks to separate the poacher from the gamekeeper. The Water Act 1973 was valuable because it brought together hundreds of small water companies. It is well understood that, with the increasing demands in both the drainage and water supply sectors, it was necessary to have larger blocks of authorities. I do not seek to detract from the importance of the 1973 provisions, but I would still argue that there is justice in separating the poacher from the gamekeeper, rather than having two gamekeepers, as Opposition Members would suggest.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We come to the guts of the Bill. We should certainly be much happier to live with the Bill if we succeeded in removing part II. It has been suggested that the alternative to water supplied through the tap is Perrier water. Advertisements on the television showing droves of milk floats delivering hundreds of bottles of water to hundreds of doorsteps bring home to us the lack of choice. The Welsh advertising campaign brings home to us the fact that the chair of the National Rivers Authority, the former Secretary of State for Wales, is also a director of HTV and reminds us that the chairman of Welsh Water has also been made a director of HTV. One must have misgivings about the heavy use of advertising to try to sell a product which is clearly not sellable.
    Wales does not want the Bill. We have seen the effects of the Government's water policies in recent years. It is interesting to note that the average domestic water bill in Wales, which was £49·08 in 1979–80, had increased to £122·61 by 1987–88; in other words, it nearly trebled. Over the same period, the required rate of return has increased from 0·3 per cent.—the going rate in 1980–81—to 2·35 per cent. in 1987–88. As the rate of return has been pushed up by the Government to increase the capital formation of Welsh Water, so the charges landing on the ratepayer have increased substantially. Similarly, we shall face enormous increases in charges for our water when the Bill is enacted because a return of 2·35 per cent. will not attract the capital necessary for the programmes that have been referred to. To achieve even a modest return of 8, 9 or 10 per cent., as Ministers have suggested, will require substantially greater charges to be levied for water.
    The average equated water rate in Wales in the financial year 1988–89 is 108p in the pound as compared with 50·95p for Severn-Trent, 58·50p for North West and 33·54p in the Thames area. We already pay twice to three times the amount that those in other water authority areas pay. We dread to think what will happen to water prices in future years; it is a grim prospect for the Welsh water ratepayer.
    We accept that we need to pay for the work that has to be undertaken, but we want a fairer method of payment than that proposed in the Bill. As long ago as the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said:
    "the necessary investment might increase prices by between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. in real terms by the end of the century."—[Official Report, 28 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 450.]
    He was referring to the investment in a programme for environmental improvement, for cleaner beaches, drinking water quality and improvement of sewage treatment works and it seems that that is over and above the other inevitable increases.
    1162
    The Secretary of State was very honest in his response to me yesterday. He said:
    "That is equivalent to an extra 7·5 per cent. to 12·5 per cent. in real terms in financial costs over the next 10 years. That is little more than 1 per cent. per year in real terms. As I have said, that is over and above the increases that would have been required without those additional programmes."—[Official Report, 21 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 1012.]
    In other words, we are facing a substantial increase. The Prime Minister said:
    "we shall need increases in water charges."
    She claimed that it was
    "not for privatisation … but to provide the capital to spend on the required increased quality."—[Official Report, 16 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 528.]
    8.30 pm
    That is what we need, but what we are saying is that the water charges will go up astronomically because of this part of the Bill. It will not just be 12·5 per cent. plus a little more, but in real terms 50, 60 or 70 per cent. The Government are acknowledging that between the lines of such answers as those given by the Secretary of State yesterday and the Prime Minister on Thursday, but that is directly contrary to the publicity campaign that was launched in Wales earlier this month. A statement released in the Committee corridor by the Minister of State, Welsh Office led to the Western Mail having the banner headline on the front page saying:
    "25% off—The hope for Wales's water bills."
    That statement was directly engineered by the Minister of State, Welsh Office to give the impression that the legislation would lead to a 25 per cent. reduction in the price of water for Wales. That is absolutely disgraceful. I call on the Minister of State to tell the House that that statement—that leak was also given to the Daily Post on the same day—was unfounded, misleading and the people of Wales should take no notice of it. That is based, of course, on the statement that
    "The Government is planning to write off £460m of Welsh Water debts to make the authority more attractive to private investors and city institutions."
    If that debt was written off now, water rates in Wales could be at a reasonable level instead of at the levels that we have suffered over recent years.
    The Government must come clean about where they stand on the matter of the writing-off of debts. How will that be managed? Was the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) right when he suggested that it would be equated between all areas? Has the matter been properly discussed? Will that be spelt out clearly in the prospectus? If we look at what was said in Committee we see that the Under-Secretary clearly had no answers to those points. He said:
    "A decision will be made on the amount of equity for each company that will be offered for sale. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning made it clear this morning that the Government intend that 100 per cent. will be floated. How we achieve that will be decided closer to the time in the interests of the taxpayer and of maximising the flotation."
    The Bill will leave the Commons without our having an inkling of the direction in which we are moving. The Under-Secretary continued:
    "I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the equity will be 51 per cent., 71 per cent., 91 per cent., or 100 per cent. I cannot tell him whether the shares will be paid for in one go or, as with other privatisations, by part payments. I

    1163
    cannot make those decisions now or say how much income will be generated."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 February 1989; c. 1326.]
    In other words, we are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke. We do not know what we will be getting. All we know is that the costs will be substantially higher and those will push water charges in Wales to an astronomical level.
    Privatisation is supposed to provide certain benefits. One of the benefits is said to be greater efficiency. We have not yet heard where that efficiency will come from, how many redundancies there will be, what slimming down there will be, or what services will not be provided. Privatisation is supposed to provide a great attraction for capital. That will not happen without the scale of charges that I have mentioned. Without those high charges, the capital will not be there. Privatisation is supposed to provide a better service for customers because of competition. However, many hon. Members—in fact, more Conservative Members than Opposition Members —have said that that competition is not there. It is a monopoly and one which cannot in any way be effective in the market place.
    We have been told that privatisation will lead to better quality. When the main criterion will be profitability, I wonder what effect that will have on the quality of water and, indeed, on public health.
    We have been told that there will be better protection for the environment, yet there is a real danger that the plc will sell its assets to raise capital that it will be unable to raise in the market place. We have been told that individuals will be more involved and that they can be shareholders. However, we know that the large institutional shareholders are likely to move in, especially with the low returns that will be available. There will be no democratic answerability and no mechanism to raise questions in the House.
    We have been told that there may be a fairer charging system. Certainly, water rates can be very unfair under the present system, but will metering be fairer when someone old and incontinent will use more than the average 9,000 gallons per annum? There have been no mechanisms to allow rebates in the past. I cannot see that metering will be fairer.
    We have been told that possibly there will be better co-ordination of the industry, but I wonder, when the question of the use of reservoirs and land arises and there is an opportunity to make money, whether the amenity value of the land will go out of the window.
    What effect will there be on industry? The increased charges may make many industries, such as the chemical industry, uncompetitive. The Department of Industry advertised at one time the attraction of water charges as an incentive for industry. I wonder whether it could put out the same booklet as it did in 1981 and 1982. Will there be any greater stability, as we have seen companies that have been taken over having to rely on the whims of the market place? All those factors fill us with foreboding.
    I tabled amendment No. 136 which refers to the need to have an absolute assurance written into this part of the Bill that there will not be any charges passed on with the introduction of meters. We welcome the Government's move on the amendments regarding disablement. Amendment No. 53, which has not been selected, deals with metering and disabled people. The Government may be able to reconsider that aspect in another place, because
    1164
    in comparable Bills, such as the one for gas, a provision has already been written in. Perhaps the Minister will consider that at an appropriate time.
    We are fearful of the effects of privatisation. Privatisation by a Government who do not have a mandate is not wanted by Wales. I hope that even at this late stage they will change their minds.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The speeches today have had a valedictory ring. The utterances from the Opposition resembled those of professional mourners at a funeral burying the corpse of nationalisation. I do not believe that they will ever be able to exhume that corpse and rattle its bones again. It is like a pavane for a dead doll because nationalisation has shrunk to that size. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has been the chief pall bearer. Speeches from other Conservative Members, however, had the ring of a job well done—a task completed and a polished performance—and were more like a march triumphant.
    It is relevant that we should be discussing the Water Bill in the round, especially the retention of part H. In 1977, the United Nations declared the 1980s to be the decade of international drinking water supply and sanitation. The goal was to meet the needs of everyone world wide by 1990. The Bill ensures that in the United Kingdom we shall do just that with an innovative, imaginative and highly effective piece of legislation which will bring immeasurable benefits to the consumer.
    As it enters its last year, the present decade has many notable achievements to its credit. The principal one is the establishment beyond doubt of the relationship between ill health, dirty water and poor sanitation. I remind the House that every day 30,000 people die from water-related diseases. In that context, and thinking especially of the developing world, it is interesting to note that every human being needs five gallons per diem for washing and drinking, but in the developed countries we use about 25 to 40 gallons. We are profligate with a natural resource. Water metering may help us there.
    In the months in which we have been debating this major piece of legislation, we have had food scares, food and health scares and, in Committee, water scares. Unwarranted, unjustified and unscrupulous attacks have been made on the purity of unbottled British drinking water. All the medical experts of the United Kingdom have declared that water to be of excellent quality, and more of our rivers have a higher water quality than many of those in Europe.
    In Committee we were threatened with Alzheimer's disease if we drank British water. The threat has been flourished with seeming relish, as though the disease would be caught by anyone drinking tap water in Britain. The chief medical officer's verdict has been wholly ignored by the Opposition. He does not believe that there is any perceived link, although he is continuing serious and proper studies.
    The Opposition have based their scare stories on an invalid extrapolation from data about kidney patients undergoing dialysis and ingesting water in an abnormal way to cleanse their kidneys, with distressing but preventable side effects. As a result of that scare story, acute unhappiness has been caused to widows and widowers whose partners have died of Alzheimer's disease.

    1165
    People ask me whether they were wrong to move to Devon and whether they did a terrible thing which caused their spouses to die.
    Mr. Heffer: I shall not take up the last point because I am not competent to do so and I do not know whether any such problems have been caused. The hon. Lady and the Government should make up their minds. On the one hand we are told that if we privatise we shall improve the quality of water—that is the essence of the argument. The hon. Lady then says that the quality of water is better than that in most of the advanced world. I do not disagree with that. I do not agree with those who say that our water is bad. Having visited Italy regularly, particularly after the war, I remember that if one went south of Milan one was damned careful not to drink the water around Rome, and so on. We all knew what could happen. The fact is that our water is good water, so why do we need to privatise it?
    Miss Nicholson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent and highly intellectual intervention based on his experience of Italian and British drinking water. The circle can be properly squared because the public are rightly becoming more environmentally conscious and calling upon us to improve the quality of our water still further. I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit my constituency, where he will discover an appalling history of poor quality water supply. The new mechanism for investment and for attracting money will improve beyond belief the appalling water that we have suffered in Bideford, Launceston and Tavistock for many years. Under the new South West Water chairman, all is being rapidly improved. That did not happen under the Labour Government appointee. With an irresponsible and heartless Opposition Front Bench team playing most meanly upon people's fears, we certainly need the Bill. It is as well that, in this context, Britannia is the clean woman of Europe.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: If our drinking water is of such a high standard, why do 11 million people drink water that is below EEC standards?
    Miss Nicholson: Our drinking water is only 95 per cent. perfect. We still have 5 per cent. to go.
    As water scares have been promoted by the Opposition, public education is the key. We need a strong and resilient group of customer service committees with powers to call for evidence from companies outside their normal remit and with the ability to challenge those companies with their findings and to put those findings to the director general. As those customer service committees will serve the public, it is most important that their meetings should be held in public. I have never understood the idea of a body that is meant to represent the public holding its meetings in private. In that context, I commend amendments Nos. 25 and 96 to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to the House. They will give us that strong and outward looking public body to educate, inform and serve the customer.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that perhaps we are mourning a dog's funeral, but I believe that the Bill is more like a dog's breakfast.
    1166
    The way in which the Bill has been presented is a total shambles, and the arguments have been contradictory. Amendment No. 1 seeks to discover what the Government are trying to get out of privatisation. There may be a case for a separate regulatory body, the National Rivers Authority. That is fair enough. If we delete part II we can go ahead and set up an NRA that will have the powers to regulate water quality, do something about our river quality and ensure that our sewerage standards are improved. All that could be done without everything being moved to the private sector.
    The question posed by the public, which the Government must answer, is what are the advantages from putting the water and sewerage undertakers into the private sector? So far they have not come up with any convincing arguments in favour of such a move. The evidence suggests that it will be a great deal more expensive for the consumer if such a move goes ahead. They have also not told the public why a natural monopoly should be put into the hands of the private sector when its natural place should be in the public sector, where control and accountability can be exercised.
    The Minister may argue that, together with passing control over to the private sector, a whole range of regulations will be introduced to prevent abuse by any private owner. That is the argument in favour of the price control mechanism. If that is the case, it makes nonsense of the argument of the Water Authorities Association that, by moving into the private sector, water companies and authorities will be free of Government interference. Given the regulations that will accompany the Bill—I accept there is a need for them—there will be more Government interference in the water companies than at present.
    It is also argued that everything will be more efficient in the private sector, but that does not automatically follow. I am not suggesting that private sector companies are not efficient—many are—but if they were all efficient, there would be no bankruptcies or fraud cases. Such things happen all the time because there are good and bad companies. By making something private it does not follow that everything will be more efficient.
    It is clear that the move into the private sector will be more expensive. The Secretary of State will not produce figures to show what it will mean for the public, because he dare not. If we are to achieve the necessary investment in our sewerage works, the sewage outfalls and the associated infrastructure, the necessary money must be raised. Raising such money through a privatised water company, however, will be more expensive than raising it through the public sector. Private water companies will not have access to the lower rates of interest that are available in the public sector and they may not have access to various European grants currently available. The shareholders' dividend will be an extra element that must go on top of the distribution charges.
    Opposition Members have already pointed out that, if those companies are to attract private capital, there must be a decent return on it. Most companies in the private sector believe that the minimum return on capital invested is 10 per cent.
    Under the present pricing regime, there is nothing like a 10 per cent. return on capital. The implication is that water charges will rise dramatically to meet that return and leave sufficient to invest in the infrastructure. Apart from some Conservative Members, nobody denies that. Even

    1167
    stockbrokers in the City have given a cool response to this privatisation because they know the investment difficulties that will have to be faced.
    Mr. Wigley: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in an unguarded moment towards the end of last year, the Secretary of State admitted that other factors would be involved, including what he described as the higher cost of private sector capital? The Government have shied away from putting a figure to it. Perhaps the Minister will give a figure tonight.
    Mr. Morley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. People who think about these issues impartially recognise the logic of what I am saying. By putting the industry into the private sector, the Government are being responsible for dramatically increasing charges. Water charges for industry will also go up. That will have an effect on our ability to compete with the Europeans, especially after 1992.
    Apart from the fact that it has not been proved that the industry will be more efficient in private hands, we must remember that the water authorities are part of our natural heritage. They control some areas of outstanding natural beauty, including important nature reserves and areas of leisure and recreation.
    Considering the restraints that will be placed on private water companies and the fact that they will be in a financial straitjacket, having little room for growth in their core services, they will inevitably look towards the land assets that will be given to them on a plate by the Government. They will be inclined to develop those land assets, and that could have a detrimental effect not only on the conservation role of that land but in terms of access by the public and the maintenance of areas of natural beauty.
    It is nonsense to suggest that the existing planning controls give sufficient protection. The Countryside Commission, a Government quango, has said that the present planning regime is not adequate to prevent the despoliation of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
    Anglian Water has put up its charges this year by 12 per cent., double the rate of inflation. That is an early indicator of the way in which charges will rocket under privatisation. The private statutory companies have already said that their astronomical increases in charges are due mainly to privatisation and not to necessary investment in the infrastructure. Indeed, one has said that the infrastructure element represented only 4 per cent. of its increase and that the rest was due to privatisation.
    Some of the amendments in this series deal with extending the role of agencies with sewerage functions. I hope that the Minister will reconsider some of the arguments that were adduced in Committee about the problem of private sewers that have not been adopted by local authorities because those sewers are not up to standard.
    I have that problem in my constituency, in Winchester avenue in Bottesford, Scunthorpe. When that develop-ment was constructed, the sewers were not put down to an adequate standard, and the local water authority, understandably, refused to adopt them. The residents of the area are anxious because the developer of the estate blames the builder who put down the sewers and the builder claims that it is the developer's responsibility. The only people who are suffering are the residents because the
    1168
    roads have not been adopted, the street lights have not been connected and the grass verges cannot be laid out, all because the sewers under the roads are in need of repair.
    If we are to make changes, we should introduce into the Bill a provision by which the new water plcs have power by law to go in, to do the job, to bring the sewers up to standard and to recover the cost from the company which laid them in the first place. That would cut through the circle of complaint, with the buck constantly being passed between developers and builders. I hope that the Minister will examine that matter. Several hon. Members, including Conservative Members, raised in Committee similar problems affecting their constituencies and we should take the opportunity of this measure to tackle that problem.
    The Bill will do nothing to improve the efficiency of the water companies. The restraints from which they have been suffering are artificial. If the Government want to improve our rivers and water standards and wish to make sure that various aspects of the infrastructure receive the necessary investment, they should remove those restraints and allow water authorities to borrow on the open market and have freedom to invest.
    By all means establish the NRA, create more regulatory powers and introduce a more efficient code of conduct, but all of that could be done by deleting part II of the Bill and making sure that part I goes through.
    Sir Anthony Grant: The 12 per cent. increase to which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred in the Anglian water authority area is in line with the forecast made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on Second Reading.
    The Cambridge water authority, which supplies water to me and my constituents, recently had to announce an increase. It was not the 43 per cent. rise which some authorities have had to announce, but it was sufficiently high at 29 per cent. It made it clear that the money was required for the replacement of old plant and for other engineering necessities and had nothing to do with privatisation.
    The Bill has not been adequately explained. That is undoubtedly why Mr. Derek Jameson and his telephone pollsters misunderstand the situation. I acquit the Minister of State entirely in that respect; he was bogged down in Committee, giving massive attention to detail—a task which he performed with his usual forensic skill—but it is now necessary to concentrate on the two fundamental points in the Bill. If that is done, we shall be able to disregard straw polls conducted by straw men.
    The first point concerns the setting up of the NRA to deal with standards and quality. The Opposition may want the NRA to be strengthened in certain respects, but it. is agreed in all parts of the House that the basic principles of the body are right. We debated this subject at length yesterday, so at this stage I will simply say that the principles involved in establishing the NRA are right, that the fears that have been expressed about dangers to our beautiful countryside are wildly exaggerated and that we can have the highest respect for our erstwhile colleague, Lord Crickhowell, who will chair that body.
    Secondly, while we are demanding higher standards, we should appreciate that our water is extremely good compared with that in some countries. Nevertheless, we and Europe want it to be better. In my constituency there is a great fuss about nitrates. We have the highest concentration of nitrates in the soil, although even that

    1169
    concentration is wildly exaggerated. I pointed out in the House recently that, while nitrates are said to cause stomach cancer, the highest incidence of stomach cancer is in Wales, where there are the lowest amounts of nitrates, and the lowest incidence of stomach cancer are to be found in East Anglia, where we have the highest concentration of nitrates. That must be borne in mind before people become hysterical over this issue.
    If we want higher standards, they have to be paid for. The Opposition have proposed a wrecking amendment. If we accept their arguments we shall simply stay in the same miserable circumstances as we had between 1974 and 1979, and subsequently, with the water industry standing docilely in a queue at the Treasury, trying to get the necessary investment. The water industry was not the only one to suffer between 1974 and 1979. Hospitals, nurses and everyone suffered in times of economic difficulty. The same could happen again. If the water industry is in the queue behind Ministers who are clamouring for more money for pensions, hospitals, defence and education, we will be back to square one.
    9 pm
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Part II of the Bill provides the opportunity for competition, although not in the commercial sense as we know it. No one can say, "I do not like Anglian Water so I will go to Thames Water because it is better or cheaper." That is not what we are talking about. By their efficiency and the way in which they conduct themselves, water authorities will be able to apply to a wider circle of investors to raise funds. They will be liberated from the constraints that have caused the difficulties up to now. That is fundamental and one of the main purposes of the Bill. We must hammer that home and explain it to the people in simple terms.
    Much nonsense is talked about the French taking over things. I am not so xenophobic as some hon. Members and I do not worry particularly about that. In 1992, if Anglian Water plc is efficient enough and keen enough, it may take over the French. When we were negotiating to go into the Common Market the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), told me that Pompidou was complaining bitterly that the British had taken over the French food industry, which they had. There is no reason why the water industry should not do the same. We should not be frightened of competition and we should not talk xenophobic nonsense.
    I will conclude by quoting from a letter to The Times by the chairman of Anglian Water, Mr. Bernard Henderson, who has put it as well as anyone could. He said:
    "For too long the United Kingdom water industry has been starved of the funds needed to carry out these improvements as it wanted to do. This has got to cease. Stop-go policies have left the water industry frustrated and underfunded time and time again.
    The present Bill offers the chance to revolutionise this situation. The powers of the secretary of state and the National Rivers Authority will ensure the remedial work is carried out. The director general will oversee the maintenance of standards and impose a price control which should encourage further efficiency gains, whilst allowing for the necessary work to be financed. And the privatised companies in turn will, for the first time, have the freedom to operate outside the constraints of public expenditure policies."
    1170
    Mr. Henderson has got to the root of the problem. We should forget the other nonsense and put that message forward. We should reject amendment No. 1. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book the better for everyone.
    Mr. Pike: I shall be extremely brief because there is a guillotine and other hon. Members want to speak. Important issues are involved in this large group of amendments. If time permitted, I would take to task the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for some of his comments about other privatised industries; he said that they had done extremely well but he did not give a true picture of the position. Many of them have created additional top-tier jobs which have benefited those at the top, but they have not done much good for the consumer. At the end of the day we should judge things by the results for the consumer. Many times during the debate the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has claimed to be a champion of consumer interests, but when she supported the main drift of the Bill she showed that she is no friend of the consumer.
    The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) referred to the Select Committee report. The Minister also made an intervention about it, referring again to the chart, as he has done so many times. The Conservative Government have been in power for almost 10 years, and they must be judged on their record. The simple fact is that, in true comparative terms, the Government investment in the water industry in 1989 is lower than it was in the mid 1970s. The chart does not give the latest figures, but what I have said is correct. The Government have failed miserably.
    There is some truth in the statement by the hon. Member for Stroud that the National Rivers Authority originated in the proposals of the Select Committee. While the Select Committee accepted that there was a need for a regulatory body, and a separation of the poacher and gamekeeper functions, it did not say that the industry should be privatised to achieve that objective. It stated clearly that the problems in the water industry arose not from ownership but because the Government controlled capital investment and interfered too much. There is no reason why the Government, if they wished, could not remove the PSBR from water authorities and allowed them to borrow on the open market, perhaps even involving some private sector finance. We do not need to go along the road of privatisation.
    If the House does not accept amendment No. 1 to delete part II which deals with privatisation, we have grave doubts that the Bill will deliver the goods. Whatever regulatory powers are provided, at the end of the day the industry has to have profit as its prime motive. We know that the Government have to fiddle the figures anq wipe out debt. They will have to make provisions for derogations and extending the period for water authorities to meet the requirements for river and water quality, and for the improvement of beaches. If they do not, the industry will not pay.
    The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said that in other privatised industries the regulatory control for price increases was RPI minus X but that in this case it would be RPI plus K. The important difference is the plus rather then the minus.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made an important point about sewers of existing properties not being up to an acceptable standard. The Minister should recognise that it is still

    1171
    possible for properties to be constructed with sewers that are not of the required standard to be taken over by water authorities. That will continue. This may not be the appropriate Bill to cover it—the Local Government and Housing Bill might be better—but the Government should do something about the problem which exists even on estates built in post-war years. The Government must accept responsibility to prevent that happening in future.
    I have known the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for many years. Indeed, I worked as a full-time Labour party organiser in the 1971 by-election that brought him to this House. He made a very bold, constructive and important speech. He recognises very clearly that, while the Government, with their majority, may win the votes in Committee and in this House, they are not winning the debate, either in Committee or in the House. But, even more important, they are not winning the debate in the nation. The people recognise that in this industry comparative competition and all that kind of nonsense is absolutely unrealistic. This will be a private monopoly. The consumers will have to pay, and if there is metering the poorer sections of the community will be penalised. If time permitted, I would go into detail on that matter.
    The Government must recognise that there are important issues involved in these amendments. The latest Select Committee report on toxic waste says that the Government should make the National Rivers Authority the basis of an environmental protection agency. As I have said to the Minister before, if the Government were to drop this nonsense of privatisation and made the National Rivers Authority an environmental protection agency, they would be doing a lot more to serve the nation.
    Mr. Leigh: I have now sat through five hours of Second Reading debate, 150 hours of Committee debate, and countless hours of Report stage debate.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: Do you want a medal?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) shared those labours with me.
    I am pleased that the Minister has accepted several of my amendments. The one that I have down this evening concerns due diligence, but I shall not delay the House by talking about that, as there is already considerable correspondence about it. In the two or three minutes available to me—I want to give other hon. Members a chance to take part in this debate—I shall try to boil down some of the arguments. Unless we can put over our case very simply, in a couple of minutes, we really are in serious trouble. But I think we can do so.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite, who may not agree with everything I say, will at least accept that I have tried to study the Bill with reasonable care. It seems to me that we are all agreed—this is the view of the people who work in the water industry: not just the chairmen of the water authorities, but people at all levels—that there is a large measure of historical under-investment in the industry. It is accepted throughout the industry that, if it were to remain in public ownership, it simply would not get the investment it needs, given the fact that it would have to compete for scarce resources. That is not a party political point. I am not making an attack on past Labour
    1172
    Governments; perhaps I am attacking the records of all Governments on this issue. There simply are no votes in sewerage. That is the first point.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Leigh: No, because I intend to speak for only two or three minutes.
    The second point is that it is in the very nature of this Bill that the regulatory functions of water quality are split from the actual provision of water and sewerage. As a result, the Government and Government agencies such as the NRA are allowed to get on with the job that they do best, which is regulation, while the private sector is allowed to get on with the job that it does best, which is providing the service. That is the very essence of the Bill.
    9.15 pm
    I think that we can get the argument across in the country if we inform people that these private sector companies will not be like other private sector companies. It seems that people out in the country think that they will operate for profit in an entirely free market. In fact, they will be tightly controlled by the Director General of Water Services, operating under the K factor. They will be operating within a tightly regulated framework, and will be much more akin to private contractors working for Government Departments than to private companies. It is not so much a question of privatising something for profit margin; what we are doing is splitting up an unhealthy relationship, in which secretive water authorities have both provided the service and regulated themselves. We are creating something much more healthy—a healthy tension between Government agencies regulating, and tightly regulated private companies providing the service.
    The people in the water industry to whom I have talked are actually looking forward to being let off the leash of Government control, of chopping and changing, as was mentioned in the letter from the chairman of the Anglian water authority—let off the leash of the Treasury, allowed to invest, allowed to attract private capital. That is what people in the water industry are saying. They look forward to providing a service. There may be price increases, but they will be the result of historic under-investment. The only way we can get real improvements really quickly is by privatising this industry, and to that end this amendment must be rejected.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) talked about this Bill representing a march triumphant. I would argue that it is a march that tramples the poor and disadvantaged into the ground. The Bill constitutes a serious attack on the rights and interests of low-paid and disadvantaged people. The hon. Lady talked about scare stories. It is no scare story to look at the record of the present Government in water charges and the hardship that those have caused in the run-up over the past few years to privatisation. In 1984, the average bill was £76; now it is £107. It is no scare story to say that the Water Authorities Association itself said that that increase was the direct result of the Government's move towards privatisation. That is not a scare story.
    Nor is it a scare story to suggest that Gordon Jones, the chairman of that association and of Yorkshire Water, has said that bills will effectively double to £200 per year by 1993. These are not scare stories. It is not a scare story to

    1173
    talk about the private companies and the figures that they put forward. The Minister proudly announced that he had got the increases down to 22 per cent.—three times the rate of inflation. These are not scare stories; they are facts, truths, that the hon. Lady conveniently forgot.
    Amendments 126 and 125 are intended to help the interests of the poor if this Bill goes through its parliamentary processes. They respond to the growing trend of disconnections. Over the past few years we have seen an average of 2,000 extra disconnections each year. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to a figure of 9,000 disconnections this year. That so many people are deprived of such a basic commodity as water is an appalling indictment of this Government. They must be very proud of their record. We heard in Committee the Tory view of wilful non-payers—the clear distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserv-ing poor—concepts which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said when he was discussing measures that have been brought in in Liverpool, take us back to the last century.
    I am deeply concerned about what will happen under this Bill to those families who cannot afford to meet their bills now, let alone when we have the huge increases that will be brought about by privatisation. It is vital to understand the seriousness of the situation in which families will find themselves when their water supply is cut off. I have listened to all the speeches that have been delivered since 6 o'clock this evening. Not one hon. Member opposite—not even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—mentioned the position of the poor, the position of the disadvantaged, the position of the disabled, the position of those people who will be, and those who have been, deprived of a water supply.
    I am sure that all hon. Members have received representations and information from the citizens advice bureau nationally about the evidence it has received. It has referred to a case in Lichfield where its client, a woman who is a single parent with a three-week-old baby, had her water supply cut off without her knowledge after she had actually paid the bill. I repeat that a three-week-old baby was deprived of its water supply.
    I have also referred to a family that I went to see while we were considering the Bill in Committee. The family has five children, one a nine-week-old baby, and it too was deprived of its water supply. Can any hon. Member who supports the legislation defend a nine-week-old baby being deprived of water? How on earth can people care for a child of that age without a water supply? It is a disgrace that the Bill will add to the misery of families such as the one I visited which told me—I mentioned this in Committee—that one of the children——
    Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am sorry but, with respect to the hon. Lady, I shall not give way to her because I am limited to only a few minutes before the wind-up speeches.
    I mentioned in Committee the condition of one of the children in that family—a five-year-old child who had diarrhoea. When there was no water supply that child refused to use the toilet because it could not be flushed so the child went to the toilet in the garden. That is the sort of situation that there will be with the privatisation of
    1174
    water. This country will be taken back 100 years to the conditions of the last century. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who has now just turned up, will be proud of that record.
    The Bill adds to the problems that are being faced by the poor as a direct result of Government policy. The Government have hammered the poor by their discon-tinuation of water rates allowances and by the way in which direct payments of water rates have been scrapped and by the way in which the benefit system has not reflected the huge increase in water rates.
    I am being looked at by my Whips so I shall sit down in a moment. I have sat here from 6 o'clock and I have had a couple of minutes in which to get this off my chest. Let us remember the poor, the disadvantaged and the deprived, not those who will make a fast buck out of the legislation.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spoke with feeling, as he did in Committee, and we respect him for it. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has been muzzled in this debate.
    I shall be brief, but I must advise my hon. Friends—and, especially, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—that the more I go round my part of the country and my constituency to explain the case for the Bill, the more it is understood and the more support it receives. People appreciate that the need for substantial investments is urgent. They appreciate that there is a need to define the functions of regulation and the supply of services. They appreciate also the need to raise environmental standards, even if the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) does not. They appreciate too that there is a need for a well-managed water industry that is capable of improving services and exporting its services, free from political control, to the Third world. They appreciate that all that is urgent.
    I wish to make a point that I made in Committee on amendment No. 148, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and which has the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who is a former Minister and about whose knowledge of the water industry no one should feel anything but respect.
    There is a need for a connection charge because of the inadequate provision made in the Bill for paying for the improvements to the infrastructure that are required to service new developments. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows, the problem at the moment arises in the following way. New dwellings are connected to public water supplies and sewerage systems and they impose a demand on the existing capacity of all elements of the water and sewerage structure. The water supply elements include source works, treatment works, pumps, trunk pipelines, treated water reservoirs and distribution pipes.
    The capital costs involved in new developments are high. At the moment, improvements have to be funded by cross-subsidy from existing customers and at the moment the section 52 arrangements are time-consuming and result in uncertainty for developers and water undertakers. Treatment works have to run at the limit of their capacity

    1175
    to justify contributions, which results in a serious risk of failure. There is also inequity between early and late developers of buildings.
    After privatisation, the problems are likely to be worse. The costs of meeting the needs of new developments will put an upward pressure on K. The contributions currently obtained from developers by section 52 planning agreements will reduce significantly after privatisation because planning authorities are bound to be less co-operative with private sector companies than they are at the moment.
    The problems of cross-subsidy and pressure on K can be overcome by introducing a statutory requirement for developers to pay a connection charge. It would be a capital sum for each dwelling and would be paid before commencement of building works. The charge would be fixed at a standard rate to reflect the average cost of meeting the development needs in each water undertaking area. Application of the charge would be policed by the director general. The introduction of the charge would streamline the planning process and give developers more certainty about their commitments and enable the water undertakers to use sensible and cost-effective planning horizons to remove inequities. The whole basis for the charge is that there should be equity.
    My hon. and learned Friend has said that he will look at this issue and, indeed, his officials are considering it. I hope that he can say something in his reply about his attitude to the charge. It is important for equity and would be an important element in the post-privatisation process between the water undertakers and the regulators. My hon. Friends and I look forward to my hon. and learned Friend's reply.
    Mr. Howard: Last night we were treated to the extraordinary spectacle of the Labour party pressing to a vote at midnight an amendment that would not have changed the Bill's effect by one iota.
    Tonight Opposition Members apparently intend to press to a Division amendment No. 1 which would delete the whole of part II and in so doing deny to the people of this country the considerable improvements in drinking water standards which we wish to see, the control over prices which the Director General of Water Services will exert and the new and unprecedented rights for customers that the Bill provides. Even by their own attitudes and standards, the Opposition's approach is incomprehensible. I shall return to that point later, but first I want to deal with some of the many other points that have been raised during this extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate.
    I shall begin with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—as I suspect that he would expect me to. I am grateful to him for the kind remarks that he made about me, although he will understand that I approach them with a degree of caution. He made a characteristically forceful speech in which he urged the provision of a water merger control regime that would apply to all 39 water undertakers to be appointed under the Bill and would extend it in certain other respects.
    The purpose of our special water merger provisions is to ensure that the director general has access to all the information that he needs so that he can compare the performance of different companies and make sure that the standards of the most efficient spread to the rest of the industry and that the customer benefits as a result. That exercise will provide a clear incentive to more efficient
    1176
    management and will be a key factor in effective regulation of the industry. The ability to make these comparisons is an advantage available to the Director General of Water Services which has not been available to the regulator of any previously privatised industries. It is one of the main reasons why we can be confident that the customer will benefit from greater efficiency in the industry in future.
    9.30 pm
    However, for that to be achieved, it is not necessary that all mergers in the industry should automatically be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—as my hon. Friend would like to see. It is not necessary for this purpose to preserve all 39 water undertakers in independent ownership. To do so would be to tend to freeze the existing pattern of ownership in the industry, and there is no reason to suppose that the existing pattern is necessarily the best or most efficient. My hon. Friend also wanted, in mergers that were referred to the Commission, account to be taken of matters such as the interests of consumers and other sectors of the economy. The Commission would be able to take those matters into account under existing arrangements.
    My hon. Friend referred to French investment in the industry. The really important point about French investment is that French companies are showing us what can be achieved in this industry by independent private sector companies taking advantage of the opportunities that are available. There is a huge worldwide market for water services—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out. The French have a large share of it. We will never be able to compete with them so long as the British water industry is a collection of nationalised industries, operating under all the constraints which are an inevitable consequence of that status. I want the British water industry to compete with the French in world markets to obtain a big share of the business that is available, and I am absolutely confident that when the industry is in the private sector that is exactly what it will achieve.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) described the effect of amendment No. 148 which stands in his name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends. We debated it in Committee and it proved to be one of the most interesting debates of our entire proceedings. As I explained to my hon. Friend, we are still looking carefully at the evidence. We have been provided with a good deal of information which needs careful examination and I am afraid that I cannot yet announce the outcome of our study of these matters. My hon. Friend knows that I have some sympathy with the points that he makes, but I hope that he will understand that I cannot go further tonight.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I fully understand my hon. and learned Friend's position. Is it still his intention to resolve this issue during the passage of the Bill, even if in another place?
    Mr. Howard: If it can be so resolved, I should be very happy to resolve it in that time scale.
    Government amendments Nos. 94, 95, 141 and 142 arise out of a commitment given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in Committee to consider the possibility of deleting the references to commercial interests in clause 161, which requires the Secretary of State to lay directions made before Parliament, unless to

    1177
    do so would prejudice national security. We have looked very carefully at the effect of the clause since our discussion in Committee, are satisfied that the references to commercial interests serve no useful purpose and have introduced amendments to give effect to that conclusion.
    Government amendment No. 25 provides for customer service committees to have a duty to keep under review all matters affecting the interests of customers and to make representations as well as to consult the companies allocated to them about such matters. It follows an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) in Committee, who asked for clarification of this point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West also spoke to her amendment No. 96, the purpose of which is to provide for public access to meetings of customer service committees. We have carefully considered the matter and I am delighted to say that we have come to the conclusion that amendment No. 96, should be accepted.
    Opposition amendments Nos. 122 and 123 deal with drinking water. The Bill establishes a comprehensive, new system for regulating and safeguarding the quality of drinking water. It represents the greatest legislative advance on this subject that we have ever seen.
    The proposals in the Bill fully incorporate the provisions in the European Community's drinking water directive and go beyond it in a number of important instances. This will be the first time that drinking water quality standards have been laid down directly in United Kingdom law.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: In the light of recent revelations that pesticides in the food chain are not easily identified, is the Minister still seeking, as he said he was in Committee, a lowering of the EC standard on pesticides in drinking water?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well —he has had it explained to him many times—that all we want is a pesticide directive that is based on proper scientific standards. The present directive is not. We think that some standards should be higher and some should be lower than they are now.
    Quite apart from the standards, we are specifying minimum sampling frequencies far higher than those in the European Community directive. Our regulations will specify monitoring frequencies for such substances as aluminium, iron and manganese which are at least four times higher than those in the directive. We are also specifying minimum treatment requirements which go beyond those in the Community directive.
    To make sure that the companies are kept up to the mark, we are establishing a drinking water quality inspectorate with full powers to carry out thorough and technical audits of the companies' records and procedures. If a company fails to implement an inspector's recommendations, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations requiring it to do so.
    There is a new duty on companies to ensure no deterioration in the quality of their supplies, and there is a
    1178
    new criminal offence of supplying water that is unfit for human consumption. It is punishable by fines or imprisonment.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrongly alleged that the regulations would make it more difficult to monitor samples and obtain information. The truth is exactly the opposite. Information on water quality would have to be made available to the public in a manner that makes it absolutely clear whether supplies comply with standards, and, if they do not, what is being done about that. These information requirements are far more comprehensive than those proposed or enforced anywhere else in Europe.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why is it that only the Secretary of State can initiate prosecutions in connection with the matter to which the Minister has just referred? Given the many months of inactivity by the Secretary of State in connection with the Lowermoor incident, in which 22,000 people—possibly more—were poisoned by their domestic water supply, what confidence can the British people have that the Secretary of State will take whatever action is necessary?
    Mr. Howard: Since, as I have said, the offence to which I have referred is a new offence which is not on the statute book, I do not understand the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's reference to Lowermoor. He is wrong even in the terms of his own question. It is not only the Secretary of State who can prosecute for this criminal offence——
    Dr. Cunningham: Or the Director of Public Prosecutions, which comes to the same thing.
    Mr. Howard: But that is an extremely important safeguard—the power is not confined to the Secretary of State. The DPP can also prosecute under this new criminal provision.
    Against this background, what do the Opposition propose? They have tabled two amendments which would require water companies to meet quality standards determined by the European Community, but not necessarily those specified in a Community directive. In other words, the requirements that will apply to drinking water in this country could be determined administratively at any time by Community bodies such as the Commission or even the European Parliament. So the Opposition would remove responsibility for water quality entirely from the United Kingdom Government and place it with officials in Brussels. I do not know whether this is to be the model for some of the other rethinking of Opposition policy about which we hear so much these days, but I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is serious about these amendments or has begun to think through their implications.
    The true colour of the Opposition's approach to these matters and the extent to which they care for the customer is to be seen in amendments Nos. 128 and 131, which would strengthen the position of local authorities in carrying out sewage work as agents for the sewerage undertakers. The Opposition cling to the view, in the face of all the evidence, that local authorities are the most efficient, the most economical and the best way of achieving the best possible results in the best of all possible worlds. Policy rethinks may come and go, but the slavish

    1179
    devotion of the Opposition to the local authorities which they control, and to the trade unions that control those local authorities, goes on for ever.
    Amendment No. 1 would delete the whole of part II. We have waited in vain throughout this long debate for any explanation of how consumers would benefit from the amendment. Part II provides that European Community drinking water standards should be incorporated in regulations—in other words, directly incorporated into British law for the first time. What objection can Opposition Members have to that?
    Part II makes it a criminal offence, for the first time, to supply water that is unfit for human consumption. Why do the Opposition want to remove that from the Bill? Part II provides for information on water quality to be published in a way that will make it absolutely clear whether water supplies comply with the standards set out in Government regulations and, if not, what the company concerned is doing about it. Why do Opposition Members wish to deny the public that information?
    Part II proposes a new drinking water quality inspectorate with full and unprecedented powers to go in and carry out thorough technical audits of records, actions and procedures. Why are the Opposition opposed to that? Part II proposes a new and rigorous enforcement regime enabling the Secretary of State to specify action to be taken to remedy breaches of drinking water and other statutory requirements, a clear and open process under the scrutiny of the courts. If any Secretary of State unreasonably failed to take action where it was justified, he would himself be vulnerable to judicial review. Why do the Opposition want to remove those arrangements, which would safeguard the quality of our drinking water?
    What about the powers of the director general to set prices and the customer service committees and guaranteed standards schemes and automatic refund payments? All those are contained in part II of the Bill. The Opposition's amendment would sweep away all these protections and safeguards for the consumer and we have absolutely no idea of what, if anything, they would put in their place.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister referred to the powers of the director general with regard to prices. Do the Government stick by their line that privatisation, as set out in part II, will reduce water prices in Wales by 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Howard: That does not come from the Government. That report refers to the capital restructuring which will no doubt take place in the Welsh water authority, in common with other water authorities, when it is transferred to the private sector. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
    By aiming to remove all those protections for the customer, consumer and the citizen, the Opposition are being utterly consistent. Their record on these matters when they were in government was lamentable.
    The hon. Member for Copeland used as the centrepiece of his speech the importance of having a coherent, well-planned strategic approach which, he said, we could have only in the public sector. Let us examine the extent to which the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the last Labour Government, was party to such a coherent, well-planned strategic approach to these matters. Let us consider bathing waters.
    1180
    In 1975, the European Community adopted the bathing waters directive which laid down standards and required member countries to designate bathing waters which would be required to meet those standards within two years. Four years later, the Labour Government left office and not a single bathing water had been designated between 1975 and 1979. That is the coherent, well-planned strategic approach to the industry in the public sector which the hon. Member for Copeland commended.
    Where was the hon. Member for Copeland at the time? He was a member of that Government and shared collective responsibility for their actions. The Labour Government had only two years to designate a bathing water, and the hon. Member for Copeland was a member of that Government, but they did not designate one during that time. What did he do about it? What did he say? Where was he?
    What about the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which was placed on the statute book by the Labour Government? They inherited that from their predecessors. It looked good on the statute book, but part II dealing with river pollution was not brought into force throughout that Labour Government's term of office.
    Totally inadequate and ineffectual regulation was carried out behind closed doors. There was no right of public involvement in decisions on consents to discharge into rivers and no right of private prosecution of polluters. The Labour Government had no idea of the performance of water authority sewage treatment works and they did not even bother to find out. Where was the hon. Member for Copeland? What did he do? What did he say? Where was the coherent, well-planned, strategic approach that one is supposed to find only in the public sector? We all know about the cuts in investment, about river pollution, and about enforcement being left in the hands of the water authorities.
    9.45 pm
    It is this Government who are tackling the task of cleaning up our water environment. We have embarked on the most comprehensive programme to clean up rivers in our country's history. We are introducing an open system of effective regulation where there was none. We are giving the public the right to be involved in decisions on consents to discharge where there was none. We are the Government who have introduced a system of sewage works discharge consents, and performance standards against which they can be measured, where there was none, and we have opened the whole thing up for public inspection.
    We are the Government who have given the public the right to prosecute polluters, and we are introducing for the first time the new criminal offence of supplying drinking water that is unfit for human consumption.
    Yesterday, the House debated the National Rivers Authority, which will be at the centrepiece of our new regulatory system. That authority and all the other provisions will count for nothing if we do not transfer the industry to the private sector. That point was made by several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle and, in an intevention, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). They all put their finger on it. It is only when the industry is in the private

    1181
    sector and has access to private sector resources and is benefiting from all the efficiency of the private sector that we shall see improvements.
    The truth is that privatisation alone will ensure that the environmental achievements we all want to see are made as quickly as possible. The Government will set the standards, the regulators will police the standards, and the companies will deliver the standards using private sector resources. That is the way we shall get fresher rivers, cleaner bathing waters and purer drinking water. That is why the Opposition's amendments are wholly miscon-ceived, and that is why our proposals deserve the wholehearted support of the House.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman is becoming a caricature of a Minister under threat. I am not surprised that, except in the closing minutes of his speech, he spent all his time on the minutiae of the Bill and did not address the major issues of principle. We are opposed in principle to the privatisation of water. That is why we have proposed an amendment to exclude part II of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Post for 3 March 1989 as commenting:
    "Water is a natural commodity which cannot be commercially and competitively produced. Rainfall is not an area of entrepreneurial activity."
    I notice that the hon. Lady is not in her place, but she is one Conservative Member who has got it right.
    The Government are in a mess. The Bill has been badly presented. It is badly drafted and ill-conceived. The Government are finding that it is unpopular throughout the country. What do they do? 'They summon up the cavalry to charge to their assistance, ten good men and true—the chairmen of the water authorities, members of the Water Authorities Association—and an independent group if ever there was one. Surprise, surprise—10 supporters of the Conservative party, all appointed by Conservative Secretaries of State, think that privatisation is a good thing. I am not surprised. We know what will happen to the salaries of the directors of water authorities after privatisation. The top executive remuneration in British Airways before privatisation in 1979 was £45,000 at 1988 prices. In 1988 it was £253,000. In 1979 the remuneration of top executives at British Gas was £49,000 at 1988 prices. In 1988 it was £184,000. It has happened in every other privatised industry, so it will happen in the water industry. I am not surprised that the chairmen are in favour of privatisation and gallop to the assistance of a Government in a mess.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House about the increase in profitability and efficiency of the industries that he has just been knocking?
    Mr. Roberts: My electorate in Bootle are not too keen on a privatised British Telecom because they are never put through to the right number and they cannot find a call box that works.
    Leaving aside the chairmen of the water authorities, there is great concern among Conservative Back Benchers. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) galloped to the rescue of the Government and we have heard speeches from other Conservative Members along the same lines of the proposals advocated
    1182
    by the right hon. Member for Henley in yesterday's debate. The right hon. Member for Henley was Secretary of State for the Environment in 1987–88, but he has suddenly discovered the answer to the Government's difficulties. There will be massive increases in water charges to pay for environmental improvements in future. The consumer will have to pay. The right hon. Member for Henley and other Conservative Members have decided that it would be better if those improvements were paid for out of public expenditure, but they have not said that. They have said that the Government should sell the water authorities to the private water companies and then give back the proceeds of the sale to the private companies to spend on environmental improvements.
    The right hon. Member for Henley should examine his own record. At 1987–88 prices, using GDP deflators, £1,062 million was spent in water authority capital expenditure in 1979–80. In 1980–81, under the right hon. Member for Henley, the figure was £1,026 million, and in 1981–82 was £938 million. There was a massive cut in water authority capital expenditure while the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment. However, he tends to have conversions on the road to Conservative party leadership elections.
    I must deal with some of the myths that the Government are creating in their attempt to justify the outrageous proposal to sell off our water assets. There is the myth that only privatisation can provide the capital expenditure to carry out all the necessary work. It will cost £3 billion to implement the EEC directive on drinking water and £1·6 billion to deal with sewage discharges above consent level. It will cost £1·3 billion to implement water metering, and the Secretary of State talks about a cost of £600 million to clean up our bathing beaches—and that is just the ones that he has identified. There will be the additional costs of dividends, profits for the shareholders and the servicing of shareholders which are not paid when the industry is in the public sector. There will be flotation and advertising costs, and the directors' fees which, as I have pointed out, will be grossly inflated. Consumers will have to pay corporation tax which is not paid by the public sector industry. All those expenses will have to be paid in addition to the capital expenditure required to clean up our rivers.
    What investor seeking a return on capital would buy responsibility for the capital expenditure required to clean up the Mersey and all the other rivers in this country? No one in his right mind will buy into that responsibility if there is no return and no profit to be made from the proposals. The Government say that there will be private capital and that they will release the publicly-owned water industry from the public sector borrowing requirement. Why can they not release the publicly-owned water industry from the public sector borrowing requirement? It would be borrowing the same money from the same source, and for the same purpose—to improve quality and for capital expenditure.
    The Government say that the consumer must pay, not the taxpayer or the polluter. Under their proposals, environmental considerations will come second to profit. That is why we seek to delete part II of the Bill. Clause 6 sets out general requirements to achieve profitability, economy, efficiency and return on capital. Clause 7, which relates to general environmental responsibilities, is a secondary consideration and is subject to clause 6. We want to delete part II because prices will rise if it is

    1183
    implemented, partly because of environmental improve-ments but also as a consequence of privatisation and the costs that I have outlined.
    We want a proper National Rivers Authority to be given wide-ranging powers over the water undertakers. The attraction for water undertakers and possible investors would fall if that happened and the price that the Government hope to realise through the flotation would be low. The Government are in a flotation dilemma. If the legislation gave the National Rivers Authority power to enforce environmental standards, and if the Director General of Water Services had sufficient power to control prices adequately, no one would buy shares in the flotation. The Government know that if EEC directives on the quality of drinking water had been written into the Bill, as we proposed in Committee, everyone would be deterred from buying shares in the privatised water companies.
    Lord Crickhowell, who is chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee and will be chairman of the National Rivers Authority—another independent individual appointed by the Government—is on record as saying:
    "I think I should make it absolutely clear that I see it as one of the priority objectives of the new National Rivers Authority to operate a slim, efficient, cost conscious organisation."
    That cost-conscious organisation will have inadequate resources to enforce necessary environmental standards and will sub-contract many of its responsibilities to the private water companies, establishing the gamekeeper and poacher as the same body.
    The Opposition and the public are offended by the callous disregard shown by the Secretary of State and Conservative Members for those in the greatest need, introducing a regime which will cut off people's water if they have difficulty paying bills without regard to the public health of the nation. If people's electricity is cut off, it is bad for them and their families. If their water is cut off, it is not just bad for them and their families—it is a public health hazard and it is bad for the whole community. The Government fail to realise that. [Interruption.] It is obvious that the Secretary of State has not been drinking much water with his dinner.
    The issue of principle for which we are arguing would keep this essential public asset in public ownership. The next Labour Government will take the water industry back into social ownership——
    Sir Anthony Grant rose——
    Mr. Roberts: —that is, if the Conservatives ever succeed in floating it in the first place.
    I refer finally to the Prime Minister's statement at the weekend:
    "Bag it and bin it and then we will win it."
    She must have been taking lessons from Dan Quayle, but Mrs. Thatcher is no Dan Quayle. The only way out for the Government and their bankrupt policy for the water industry is to take the Water Bill and bag it and bin it. That is their only hope.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 300.

    Division No. 132]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbot, Ms Diane

    Anderson, Donald

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Allen Graham

    Armstrong, Hilary

    1184

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ashton, Joe

    Holland, Stuart

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Home Robertson, John

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Battle, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Blair, Tony

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Boateng, Paul

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Boyes, Roland

    Illsley, Eric

    Bradley, Keith

    Ingram, Adam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Janner, Greville

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Buckley, George J.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Caborn, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Callaghan, Jim

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Leighton, Ron

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cartwright, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Litherland, Robert

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clay, Bob

    Livsey, Richard

    Clelland, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Coleman, Donald

    McAllion, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McCartney, Ian

    Corbett, Robin

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McFall, John

    Cousins, Jim

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Crowther, Stan

    McKelvey, William

    Cryer, Bob

    McTaggart, Bob

    Cummings, John

    McWilliam, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Madden, Max

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Darling, Alistair

    Marek, Dr John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Maxton, John

    Dobson, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Doran, Frank

    Meale, Alan

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Eastham, Ken

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Morley, Elliott

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mullin, Chris

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Murphy, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Nellist, Dave

    Foster, Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foulkes, George

    O'Brien, William

    Fraser, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Fyfe, Maria

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Galbraith, Sam

    Patchett, Terry

    Galloway, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Pike, Peter L.

    George, Bruce

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Prescott, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Radice, Giles

    Gordon, Mildred

    Randall, Stuart

    Gould, Bryan

    Redmond, Martin

    Graham, Thomas

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Reid, Dr John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Richardson, Jo

    Grocott, Bruce

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Robertson, George

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Rogers, Allan

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rooker, Jeff

    Henderson, Doug

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    1185

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wallace, James

    Salmond, Alex

    Walley, Joan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Warded, Gareth (Gower)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Worthington, Tony

    Stott, Roger

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Strang, Gavin

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Turner, Dennis

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Vaz, Keith

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

    Wall, Pat

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Cran, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Amess, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Amos, Alan

    Dicks, Terry

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Dover, Den

    Ashby, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fallon, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Favell, Tony

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Benyon,W.

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Forman, Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forth, Eric

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Franks, Cecil

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Freeman, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gale, Roger

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gardiner, George

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowis, John

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bright, Graham

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gorst, John

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gow, Ian

    Burt, Alistair

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Chris

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butterfill, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Ground, Patrick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Grylls, Michael

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hague, William

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Churchill, Mr

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hannam, John

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Harris, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Couchman, James

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    1186

    Hayward, Robert

    Needham, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heddle, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Norris, Steve

    Hind, Kenneth

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Holt, Richard

    Paice, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howard, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Pawsey, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Portillo, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Irvine, Michael

    Price, Sir David

    Irving, Charles

    Raffan, Keith

    Jack, Michael

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Jackson, Robert

    Rathbone, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Redwood, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Ronton, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Kilfedder, James

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rost, Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ryder, Richard

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knox, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lang, Ian

    Scott, Nicholas

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sims, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lilley, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Speller, Tony

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Squire, Robin

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stan brook, Ivor

    Maclean, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Maples, John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Marlow, Tony

    Sumberg, David

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mills, Iain

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moate, Roger

    Thorne, Neil

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thurnham, Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Trippier, David

    Mudd, David

    Trotter, Neville

    Neale, Gerrard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    1187

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Viggers, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Wilshire, David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Walden, George

    Wolfson, Mark

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Woodcock, Mike

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Yeo, Tim

    Warren, Kenneth

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Watts, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wheeler, John

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. Tony Durant.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 10

    APPOINTMENT OF UNDERTAKERS
    Amendment proposed: No. 102, in page 9, line 36, after 'Chapter', insert
    'and provided that no reference to the Monopolies Commission made in accordance with section 28(2)(b) in respect of that company is outstanding.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Winterton.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 296.

    Division No. 133]

    [10.16 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darling, Alistair

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Anderson, Donald

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

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dewar, Donald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Doran, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Battle, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Beckett, Margaret

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Flynn, Paul

    Blair, Tony

    Foster, Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Foulkes, George

    Boyes, Roland

    Fraser, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Galbraith, Sam

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Galloway, George

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    George, Bruce

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Buckley, George J.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Caborn, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Graham, Thomas

    Cartwright, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clay, Bob

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clelland, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Cohen, Harry

    Henderson, Doug

    Coleman, Donald

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Holland, Stuart

    Corbett, Robin

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crowther, Stan

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Cryer, Bob

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cummings, John

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    1188

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Illsley, Eric

    Prescott, John

    Ingram, Adam

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Janner, Greville

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Barry (Alyn S Deeside)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Kennedy, Charles

    Reid, Dr John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Richardson, Jo

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Leighton, Ron

    Robertson, George

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooker, Jeff

    Litherland, Robert

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Livsey, Richard

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Salmond, Alex

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAllion, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McCartney, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McFall, John

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

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Soley, Clive

    McKelvey, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    McTaggart, Bob

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    McWilliam, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Madden, Max

    Stott, Roger

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Strang, Gavin

    Marek, Dr John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Turner, Dennis

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Vaz, Keith

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wall, Pat

    Maxton, John

    Wallace, James

    Meacher, Michael

    Walley, Joan

    Meale, Alan

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morley, Elliott

    Wilson, Brian

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Winnick, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Murphy, Paul

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Nellist, Dave

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Worthington, Tony

    O'Brien, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Allason, Rupert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Amos, Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Brazier, Julian

    Ashby, David

    Bright, Graham

    Aspinwall, Jack

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

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Baldry, Tony

    Burt, Alistair

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Butcher, John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butler, Chris

    Bellingham, Henry

    Butterfill, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Benyon, W.

    Carrington, Matthew

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cash, William

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    1189

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Harris, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hayward, Robert

    Couchman, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cran, James

    Heddle, John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Devlin, Tim

    Hind, Kenneth

    Dicks, Terry

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Holt, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Dover, Den

    Howard, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Durant, Tony

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Eggar, Tim

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Fallon, Michael

    Irvine, Michael

    Favell, Tony

    Irving, Charles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Jack, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Jackson, Robert

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Janman, Tim

    Forman, Nigel

    Jessel, Toby

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Forth, Eric

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Franks, Cecil

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Freeman, Roger

    Key, Robert

    French, Douglas

    Kilfedder, James

    Fry, Peter

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Gale, Roger

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Gardiner, George

    Knapman, Roger

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Gill, Christopher

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Knox, David

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Lang, Ian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Latham, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Gorst, John

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Gow, Ian

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gregory, Conal

    Lord, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Ground, Patrick

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Grylls, Michael

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Hague, William

    Maclean, David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Madel, David

    1190

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mans, Keith

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Maples, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Sims, Roger

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Mates, Michael

    Speller, Tony

    Mills, Iain

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Squire, Robin

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Moate, Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Steen, Anthony

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Stern, Michael

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Stevens, Lewis

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Mudd, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Neale, Gerrard

    Sumberg, David

    Needham, Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Neubert, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Norris, Steve

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Thorne, Neil

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thurnham, Peter

    Paice, James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tracey, Richard

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Tredinnick, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Trippier, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Trotter, Neville

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Portillo, Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Price, Sir David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Raffan, Keith

    Walden, George

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Redwood, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Renton, Tim

    Watts, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wells, Bowen

    Riddick, Graham

    Wheeler, John

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Whitney, Ray

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wilshire, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rost, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Woodcock, Mike

    Ryder, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Scott, Nicholas

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Alan Howarth.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after half-past Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 98.

  Clause 19
    ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS
    Amendment made: No. 141, in page 21, line 38, leave out 'or the commercial interests of any person'.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Clause 20
    PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 142, in page 24, line 26, leave out 'or the commercial interests of any person'.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Clause 26

    PROTECTION OF CUSTOMER INTERESTS
    Amendment made: No. 29, in page 29, line 2, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
    '(a) to keep under review all matters appearing to the committee to affect the interests of the persons who are customers or potential customers of the companies allocated to the committee, to consult each company so allocated about such of those matters as appear to affect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that company and to make to a company so allocated all such representations about any such matter as the committee considers appropriate; '.—[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 33

    PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE
    Amendments made: No. 31, in page 37, line 32, at beginning insert—
    '( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of such information relating to any matter which is connected with the carrying out by a company holding an appointment under this Chapter of the functions of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker as it may appear to him to be in the public interest to publish.'.
    No. 32, in page 37, line 38, at beginning insert 'the Secretary of State or'.
    No. 33, in page 37, line 41, at end insert
    'Secretary of State or (as the case may be) of the'.
    No. 34, in page 37, line 46, at end insert
    'Secretary of State or (as the case may be) of the'.[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 40

    FINANCIAL CONDITIONS FOR WATER MAIN ACQUISITION
    Amendments made: No. 15, in page 43,1ine 24, leave out from 'by' to end of line 27 and insert
    'the annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of that main.
    (3A) The annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of a water main is the aggregate amount which would fall to be paid in any year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if an amount equal to so much of the costs reasonably incurred in providing
    1192
    that main as were not incurred in the provision of additional capacity had been borrowed, by the water undertaker providing the main, on terms—

    (a) requiring interest to be paid and capital to be repaid in twelve equal annual instalments; and

    (b) providing for the amount of the interest to be calculated at such rate, and in accordance with such other provision, as may have been determined either by the undertaker with the approval of the Director or, in default of such a determination, by the Director.'.

    No. 16, in page 44, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
    '(6A) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—

    (a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director; or

    (b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,

    on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
    (7) An approval or determination given or made by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) or (6A) above—

    (a) may be given or made in relation to the provision of a particular water main, in relation to the provision of mains of a particular description or in relation to the provision of water mains generally; and

    (b) may be revoked at any time except, in the case of an approval or direction for the purposes of subsection (3A) above, in relation to a water main that has already been provided.'.

    No. 17, in page 44, line 24, leave out subsection (9). —[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 42

    CONDITIONS OF CONNECTION TO WATER MAIN
    Amendment made: No. 18, in page 47, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '(3) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—

    (a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director; or

    (b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director;

    on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker; and an approval or determination by the Director for the purposes of this subsection may be given or made in relation to a particular case or description of cases or generally and may be revoked at any time.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 70

    FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF SEWER REQUISITION
    Amendment made: No. 19, in page 80, line 37, leave out from 'by' to end of line 40 and insert
    'the annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of that sewer.
    (3A) The annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of a public sewer is the aggregate amount which would fall to be paid in any year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if an amount equal to so much of the costs reasonably incurred in providing that sewer as were not incurred in the provision of additional capacity had been borrowed, by the sewerage undertaker providing the sewer, on terms—

    (a) requiring interest to be paid and capital to be repaid in twelve equal annual instalments; and

    (b) providing for the amount of the interest to be calculated at such rate, and in accordance with such other provision, as may have been determined either

    1193
    by the undertaker with the approval of the Director or, in default of such a determination, by the Director.'.

    No. 20, in page 81, line 33, clause 70, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
    '(6A) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above any sums have been deposited with a sewerage undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—

    (a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director; or

    (b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,

    on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
    (7) An approval or determination given or made by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) or (6A) above—

    (a) may be given or made in relation to the provision of a particular public sewer, in relation to the provision of sewers of a particular description or in relation to the provision of sewers generally; and

    (b) may be revoked at any time except, in the case of an approval or direction for the purposes of subsection (3A) above, in relation to a public sewer that has already been provided.'.

    No. 21, in page 81, line 46, leave out subsection (9). —[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 71

    PERFORMANCE OF SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.
    Amendment made: No. 63, in page 82, line 3, leave out from 'out' to end of line 6 and insert
    `sewerage functions on that undertaker's behalf in relation to such area comprising the whole or any part of that authority's relevant area, together (where that authority are a local authority or an urban development corporation and the arrangements so provide) with parts of any adjacent relevant areas of other relevant authorities, as may be specified in the arrangements.'—[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 86

    RESPONSIBILITY FOR LISTING PARTICULARS OF NOMINATED HOLDING COMPANIES
    Amendment made: No. 43, in page 94, leave out lines 17 to 34 and insert—
    '.—(1)Where—

    (a) the same document contains listing particulars for securities of two or more nominated holding companies; and

    (b) any person's responsibility for any information included in the document is stated in the document to be confined to its inclusion as part of the listing particulars for securities of any one of those companies,

    that person shall not be treated as responsible for that information in so far as it is stated in the document to form part of the listing particulars for securities of any other of those companies.
    (2) Sections 150 and 154 of the 1986 Act (advertisements etc. in connection with listing applications) shall have effect in relation to any information issued for purposes connected with any securities of a nominated holding company as if any reference to a person's incurring civil liability included a reference to any other person being entitled, as against that person, to be granted a civil remedy or to rescind or repudiate any contract.'.
    No. 44, in page 94, line 36, leave out 'and'.
    No. 45, in page 94, leave out lines 39 to 42 and insert
    1194
    "'responsible" means responsible for the purposes of Part IV of the 1986 Act and "responsibility" shall be construed accordingly.'.[Mr. Howard.]

  Clause 91

    TAX PROVISIONS
    Amendments made: No. 46, in page 98, line 10, after `(1)', insert
    `The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of section 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 (writing-down allowance), by order make provision specifying—

    (a) the amount to be taken for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section as the residue on the transfer date of any expenditure in relation to which any property vested in a successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act is a relevant interest for the purposes of that section; and

    (b) the part of the period mentioned in subsection (3) of that section which is to be treated, in relation to any such property, as unexpired on that date.

    (1A)'.
    No. 47, in page 98, line 17, leave out from 'of' to 'had' in line 18 and insert
    `such amount as may be specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
    No. 48, in page 98, line 20, at end insert—
    `(1B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) or (1A) above in relation to any property of a successor company except with the consent of the Treasury and at a time when the company is wholly owned by the Crown; and the power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different property or descriptions of property.'.—[Mr. Howarth.]

  Clause 104

    AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGES AND OTHER DEFENCES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 103
    Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 111, leave out line 47.
    After the excitement of a few moments ago, I feel myself rather in the position of the dustcart after the Lord Mayor's show, though it would be indelicate if I were to speculate on which particular speeches require sweeping up. However, it is perhaps appropriate to start with that analogy because we now come to the parts of the Bill that are directed towards the control of pollution. This is an area in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken a keen interest. We are all anxious to ensure that standards are maintained and, wherever possible, raised.
    The amendment would change slightly the existing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, which, as the House will know, are reflected in the Bill. It is right and proper for me to acknowledge, though I do so with some regret, that there must be provision—as there is—for valid defences for causing pollution, provided that permission is very tightly controlled. Clearly, that applies to discharges in accordance with a consent issued by the National Rivers Authority or, in the case of this specific provision, to derogations from the penalties where there is an emergency, in order to avoid other dangers to the public. Perhaps I should say, en passant, that I am very pleased with Government amendment No. 64, which will further confine what might be called the emergency excuse.

    1195
    It is right to provide for eventualities and to provide that these discharges follow the requirements of the National Rivers Authority. It is also right that there should be clarity for operators who discharge within consents and that they may do so without fear of prosecution. But, equally, I think that it will be agreed by all that there should be no easy loopholes—certainly no avoidable loopholes—in the legislation. There should be no way in which those who might pollute our rivers may do so with impunity.
    Hon. Members—certainly those who served on the Standing Committee—will recall some of the debate on this clause. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to that debate, not least because the Government undertook to reflect on the very serious points that were made then. It should be remembered that the basis of clause 104 is no more than a continuation of the current law.
    The defence is already available under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Nevertheless, real problems have been drawn to my attention by the water authorities and I believe that it is right to ventilate them further. The amendment refers to waste disposal sites. Elsewhere in the clause there are references to mines and ships, but I shall confine my remarks to the issue of disposal licences. It should be made clear that where an operator wishes to obtain a site for a tip for disposal, his licence comes from the local authority, not from the water authority. I welcome the provision for the local authority to consult the water authority on such an application, which will carry forward into the new arrangements after privatisation.
    Once the operator has obtained the disposal licence from the local authority, he can set up his waste disposal site. The House will be well aware of the problems that some sites cause. We are all aware of the recent report by the Select Committee on the Environment and of the articles in The Times this month. It is the experience of the water authorities that have contacted me that there are frequent examples of watercourses being directly polluted as a result of the seepage of toxic materials in leaching from such sites.
    The Anglian water authority has drawn my attention specifically to three such recent incidents in its area—one at Rushton, which is in the county but not the constituency that I represent. Others are cropping up all the time. Such pollution incidents damage fisheries and damage or threaten the public water supply because this pollution is, as it were, unplanned for, is sometimes not easy to detect quickly and can be insidious. It is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that under clause 53 the water undertakers themselves will, for the first time, be guilty of a criminal offence if they supply unfit water for human consumption. Therefore, they, too, will have a close interest in avoiding the sort of pollution to which I am referring.
    The House will certainly be aware that the problems with the sites arise mainly from the lack of proper provision and the lack of effective supervision of after-care arrangements by the disposal operators, especially where the site has been closed. It would be wrong in principle if such operators were also to have a special cast-iron defence because of their possession of a disposal licence, which is what the amendment seeks to strike out. As I have said, there are similar concerns over vessels and abandoned mines. These are real issues that worry hon. Members of all parties.
    1196
    The water authorities have enough to do in trying to protect our rivers without this extra burden on them. Only last week I was given to understand that the Anglian water authority, which covers the greater part of my constituency, was faced with a major pollution incident in Suffolk. Pig slurry had gone into the river, affecting 30 miles, and killing thousands of fish. Tragically it was in a river that the authority had only recently restocked. No doubt there will be proceedings against the farmer involved, but I gather that that farmer has already been prosecuted four times. The water authority suggested that, when dealing with the overall issue of pollution, it might be wise to consider a provision for an injunction procedure as opposed simply to dealing with incidents on an ad hoc basis through prosecution.
    In moving the amendment I put down a marker of continuing concern. I know that the Minister has expressed his own anxiety about these problems. I hope that he will note my suggestion, listen to the debate and, I hope, return with something before the final proceedings on the Bill.
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is, in more ways than one, the carthorse that comes along after the Lord Mayor's show. Not only does the hon. Gentleman follow through today's proceedings and the major debate that we had on previous amendments, but he picks up, in identical terms, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which I moved in Committee.
    This is a modest little amendment. Committee members may remember that we proposed it in a spirit of good will —there was not much acrimony or argument between the parties, although such days did exist. To give Jack his jacket, the Minister responded in kind, which is why we look forward to hearing from him what positive steps he plans to take, having had time for mature reflection.
    This is an important little amendment because it seeks to overcome a gap in the existing law and the fact that the present site regulations on waste disposal are seriously defective. The amendment says that there should be no exception from prosecution if the discharge of polluting waters takes place from the site where a disposal licence has been given under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It is as simple as that, and is not—as was rather uncharitably suggested by the Minister before he fully appreciated the purport of the amendment—a duplication of controls. The amendment does not require the water authorities' controls to be applied through both the waste disposal licence and the discharge consent. He was concerned about that and said that he was not persuaded that anything was to be gained from such duplication. Nothing would be gained, which is precisely why the amendment does not propose such duplication.
    The amendment merely says that there should be no automatic exemption where leachates discharge to land or percolate through surrounding rock strata and pollute the water supply. In such a case the prevention of pollution is clearly intended to be covered by the waste disposal licence. There does not appear to be any undue difficulty in stating that an offence could still occur in such circumstances, when, because of the gap in the existing laws—due to the withdrawal by the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980 of the powers to issue

    1197
    regulations under section 6 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974—it is possible for abuse to take place and for the public to be without proper remedy. That has happened.
    The result of the unintended gap in the law is that a waste disposal authority can bring criminal proceedings against a discharger of pollutant only if waste has been deposited when the pollution is taking place. The chance of a waste disposal officer happening to visit the site just as this was occurring, who was able to give evidence that, as the waste was deposited the leachates or overflow was occurring, is—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could imagine, if you were to apply your mind to such an unpleasant course of events—unlikely to result in many successful prosecutions.
    We are told that the reason for the gap between the Committee and Report stages is to allow the Minister time to reflect and to consult his advisers. I notice that not many papers have been passed to the Minister during the speech of the hon. Member for Daventry or during my speech. I see the Minister pointing to his head: that is only small consolation. I do not want to be offensive to the Minister, but we can take only small satisfaction from his gesturing to the size of his cerebral matter. In any event, I hope that the absence of passed notes denotes that the amendment is wholly acceptable and in the public interest.
    10.45 pm
    Unanimity has broken out in the House, as it did in Committee. We hope the Minister will respond in the spirit that has caused that unanimity to break out.
    We want to give the Minister a warning. When we moved the amendment in Committee, we wanted to give him a lifeline. He was getting himself into hot water at the time—scalded is the word that springs to mind. He is not unaccustomed to that, but we wanted to give him a way out. We wanted him to be able to show that he was, after all, the consumers' friend, a man genuinely concerned about the environment. So we offered him this simple, easy little amendment in a spirit of helpfulness. In Committee, he put his hand halfway out; we should like him to stretch it right out tonight.
    The Minister should bear in mind the warning given by the Earl of Rosebery all those years ago at the time of the formation of the London county council. It concerned the significance of water in the affairs of our nation.
    "Water",
    he said,
    "is one of those points which have wrecked a powerful government before now and may wreck governments again."
    The Minister should keep that in the forefront of his mind when considering his response to this little debate, and seek to salvage something from the wreckage.
    Mr. Allen McKay: I brought a particular problem to the Minister's attention in Committee. We bottled the problem, to show what it was about. This amendment would deal with that problem in the future, although we can do nothing about the past.
    The Minister promised to discuss with other Departments how to deal with this problem from the past. I refer to discharges from closed collieries. Yesterday we discussed the restructuring of the mining industry in Committee. When the Government talk about restructuring, they mean more closures. It is imperative that we deal with the problem now at its source. I want to ask the
    1198
    Minister about the discharges from Bullhouse colliery. The Minister promised that he would discuss ways of dealing with that problem with the Department of the Environment.
    We must recognise the extent of the Government's powers as a result of their majority in this House, but we should also recognise the power of the public who are speaking out openly against the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act, the chances of the River Don being cleaned by British Coal or the NRA would be remote.
    I spoke to Gordon Jones, the chairman of Yorkshire Water, and three of his four directors at 5 pm today. I was tied up in the Chamber for a while, but he told me that simply to clean the river to comply with EC standards on drinking water would cost £140 million. That gives us some idea of the massive task facing a privatised Yorkshire Water. There will be little room for financial manoeuvre to clean up the river. The river can be cleaned. I have examined the minutes of meetings held by South Yorkshire county council to discuss the problem. It admitted that it would be a costly process. It would cost about £300,000 to be effective and would require running costs of around £130,000 a year.
    That may seem a lot of money to clear that stretch of the river, but correspondence from a constituent of mine, Mr. S. N. Crofts, puts the matter into perspective. Mr. Crofts, who has been following our proceedings very carefully, wrote to me on 9 January expessing his concerns about the Bill. In his latest letter he says that he has not written since then because all kinds of things have been happening in the House, which is true in many respects. Mr. Crofts brings to my attention a list of companies which are regularly, under licence, discharging toxic waste into the River Don. That pollution is in addition to the discharges from Bullhouse colliery.
    I am glad that Mr. Crofts has written to me. I will be visiting him because he has kept records since 1985 and has produced graphs which show clearly where and when the pollution occurs. That information would be very useful. He also provides the Yorkshire water authority with information about the river. As the secretary of the Salmon and Trout Association in south Yorkshire, he has a strong vested interest in the quality of the water. In his most recent letter, Mr. Crofts points out clearly what could happen if the river was cleaned up:
    "where industry or mine water does not affect the river and where trout and grayling abound along with kingfishers, dippers, moorhens and herons along with all the waterside plants when clean unpolluted water is available."
    Amendment No. 98 would help to affect the river waters and improve the condition described by Mr. Crofts. This is a small amendment and it would reflect well on the Government if they would accept it. It would show that they are sincere in their views about the cleanliness of river water. I had hoped that the Minister would rise to accept the amendment because we had won through. If the Government will not accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will provide an explanation. I hope that he will also explain what progress is being made with other Departments in relation to cleansing the River Don of the discharges to which I have referred.
    Ms. Walley: I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has any assurances to give following our earlier discussions—which he has now had an opportunity fully

    1199
    to consider—particularly as the amendment is in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
    If polluted discharges occur at a site where there is a disposal licence granted under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, there should be no exceptions to prosecution. We acknowledge, as I trust the Minister does, the genuine concern that exists among the public that there should be integrated pollution control. The amendment addresses a loophole in the 1974 Act. If no opportunity is offered by the Bill to close it in respect of disposal sites and licences, there is a real risk that any future legislation resulting from the current consultation paper on waste disposal will, far from being integrated, be likely to go off at an even greater tangent. Existing legislation must be tightened up, and that tightening up should be reflected in the Bill also.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) drew attention to the anxieties of those living in the vicinity of waste disposal sites, who are acutely aware of the problems that pollution creates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) argued that the amendment is wholly acceptable and in the public interest. I urge the Minister to recognise that the Government's credibility, in claiming to be an Administration concerned about pollution control, is at stake.
    Mr. Moynihan: The debate has been helpful, not least in respect of the poetic contribution of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who, in characteristic style, sought to ensure that I extend my arm further towards the arguments made by both sides of the House and accept the amendment. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my arm, which is already half extended, is moving rapidly towards the three quarter mark. I say that, because the points made by hon. Members were important and relevant, and because I recognise the water authorities' concern that existing arrangements are not operating satisfactorily. That point was made also in Committee.
    The only reason why I hold back from fully extending my arm is to be found in the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made the House aware that the Environment Committee has just published its report on toxic wastes, which deals with waste disposal sites and has an obvious bearing on the subject. We have not yet finished studying that report. Moreover, in the context of proposals for integrated pollution control, consideration is still being given to the overall regulation of waste disposal sites and to the links between land and water pollution.
    We are still carefully considering the implications of policies affecting the issues that are the subject of the amendment. However, I assure the House that we are keen to ensure the best practical protection of water quality from pollution by waste disposal and landfill sites. If further strengthening is possible in the context of the Bill, we shall pursue it.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) raised an important point about discharges from collieries, particularly the Bullhouse colliery. I had the good fortune to discuss the matter with him, and I mentioned that I would provide him with comprehensive answers and additional information about the grants we were discussing in Committee. I shall hurry that along in
    1200
    view of his wish to pursue that constituency matter. I assure him that I will get back to him as soon as I possibly can.
    11 pm
    Mr. Boswell: As the Minister has extended his arm three quarters of the way to meet the issues that we have raised, I am prepared to wait one quarter longer for his final decision, in the confident hope that it will be a positive decision taken before the end of the passage of the Bill. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 112, line 9, after 'public', insert—
    `( ) that person takes all such steps as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances for minimising the extent of the entry or discharge and of its polluting effects;'.
    I do so with confidence, because my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) welcomed the amendment when he saw it on the Amendment Paper and I am sure that it will be welcomed by Opposition Members.
    Clause 104(2) provides that a person shall have a defence to a charge of polluting rivers and other controlled waters if he can show that the polluting discharge or entry was made in an emergency to avoid danger to the public.
    The Government consider that that defence, which reproduces the existing provision in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, should be subject to an important condition. A person should be able to plead such a defence only if he can demonstrate that he has taken all reasonably practicable steps in the circumstances to minimise the discharge and its polluting effect. That is provided in this tightening-up amendment.
    Even in the case of an emergency discharge, discha.rgers should have a clear obligation to do all they can to minimise the effects of their discharges. It will make a further small, but important and useful, contribution to a more effective system of pollution control, and I commend it to the House.
    Ms. Walley: There is some concern that amendment No. 64 could be interpreted as a get-out or let-out provision. It is important that the Minister gives us some idea of what he means by "reasonably practicable". How subjective will that assessment be and who will judge whether something is "reasonably practicable"? Is the Minister concerned about whether the general public will consider something to be "reasonably practicable"? Will an action have to be "reasonably practicable" in the view of the water companies or in the opinion of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which has been grossly under-resourced in terms of staff and so on?
    The amendment appears to be highly subjective. The Minister needs to give the House some assurances on where the principle that the polluter pays fits into the amendment. For those reasons we seek further clarifica-tion from the Minister as to the purpose of the amendment.
    Mr. Boateng: The uncharitable might believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was being somewhat carping in her response to the Minister who has come to the Chamber at this time of night to move such an amendment. They would be deeply misguided in that view. The points that my hon. Friend

    1201
    raised have to be taken on board, because, sad to say, experience has shown that the water companies, which are to be regulated and controlled, and are subject to the legislation might seek to use the defence that the Minister has provided in the amendment. Those self-same water companies agree with Mr. Keith Court, who is chairman of South West Water. I note that the Minister for Water and Planning is even more languid than usual. One might think that he is the last Minister who can afford to be languid. He flings himself back on the Bench—were the cameras only present—a smile hovering on his lips, with mute resignation playing around those pearly gates.
    Mr. Keith Court said:
    "High calibre staff will be needed to outwit the regulators of the water industry after privatisation."
    Those high-calibre staff will no doubt be paid the high sums mentioned quite properly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
    If high-calibre staff are to be employed to outwit the regulators, it is vital that the question that we have asked is answered. There are circumstances in which a defence such as that provided by the amendment should properly exist. There should be a defence in an emergency, but what is meant by an "emergency"? In what circumstances does the Minister foresee that it would be reasonable for the polluter to draw himself or herself within the ambit of the defence?
    That question becomes more important when one reflects on how existing law is administered and applied by the courts. Widespread concern has been expressed by not only Labour Members but Conservative Members about some interpretations of pollution control law, the fines imposed and the latitude that is sometimes extended to the polluter. We hoped for—I am sure that it is a hope shared by all reasonably minded people—the greening of the magistracy so that it might become more vigilant.
    That is not an unreasonable hope, but Labour Members are not prepared to rely on hopes, which dominate the thoughts of Conservative Members. They hope that regulation will be effective and that somebody will purchase shares. We are not content to rest on hope; we want some certainty, which the Minister has not provided. When we receive that certainty, he may find that Labour Members are prepared to take a reasoned attitude to the amendment.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) omitted to mention the charity that might be offered by the amendment. That might be a let-out for polluters. I hope that it is not, but if one examines the amendment carefully a number of questions arise.
    As the hon. Member for Brent, South rightly said, an emergency has not been accurately defined. Will the words "reasonably practicable" be defined? What steps should be taken when an emergency occurs to prevent it getting out of hand? The word "minimising" could also have various interpretations. One would have thought that "prevent-ing" would have been better than "minimising". I trust that my suspicions will be dispelled by the Minister. I hope that he will be able to convince me that the use of those words is specific and that he can explain their meaning in detail so that we can all be reassured.
    Mr. Moynihan: It is in the nature of an emergency that it is impossible accurately to define what it will be. It is absurd for Opposition Members to suggest that the Bill could describe in detail a range of possible emergencies to back up the case. If an accident occurred, for example, at a water treatment plant and chemicals used in the treatment process got into the water, the water plc would have to make a decision as to the most important step to be taken in the light of public health. The company might conclude that the best step to take would be to discharge the affected water into the water course rather than allow it to find its way into the system. The company might not need to make that decision, but it is impossible to predict accurately all the factors that would need to be assessed in an emergency.
    As the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) so accurately stated, it is important that proper provision is made for an emergency, but it is rich indeed for the hon. Gentleman—a distinguished lawyer in his own right—to wish to define in greater detail the long-standing defence of "reasonably practicable". [Interruption.] There is a certain amount of barracking about whether the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer—a highly paid lawyer might be a more accurate description.
    Mr. Boateng: Get on with it.
    Mr. Moynihan: Suffice it to say, in the last two minutes of this debate, that it is for the courts to make the judgment in the light of all the circumstances. That is the key point. We seek to tighten the defence available before the courts by bringing forward amendment No. 64.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 126

    GENERAL DROUGHT ORDERS
    Amendment made: No. 35, in page 127, leave out lines 16 to 24 and insert—
    '(5) The following provisions apply where an order under this section contains a provision authorising a water undertaker to prohibit or limit the use of water, that is to say—

    (a) the power may be exercised in relation to consumers generally, a class of consumer or a particular consumer;

    (b) the water undertaker shall take such steps as it thinks appropriate for bringing the prohibition or limitation to the attention of the persons to whom the prohibition or limitation will apply and, in particular, shall (as the undertaker thinks appropriate)—

    (i) cause notice of the prohibition of limitation to be published in one or more local newspapers circulating within that part of the water undertaker's area which would be affected by the provision of the order; or

    (ii) send notice of the prohibition or limitation to the persons to whom the prohibition or limitation will apply;

    (c) the prohibition or limitation shall not come into operation until the expiration of the period of seventy-two hours beginning with the day on which the notice is published or, as the case may be, sent to the person in question:.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

  Clause 136

    FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY IN RELATION TO FISHERIES
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 139, line 1, leave out `advisory'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 79, in page 139, line 1, leave out
    'who appear to it to be'.
    No. 80, in page 139, line 5, at end insert—
    `and to delegate to them such powers and duties as it may from time to time think fit'.
    No. 153, in page 139, line 5, at end insert—
    '(2) The chairmen of the regional committees shall be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Authority.'
    No. 81, in page 139, line 6, leave out 'advisory'.
    No. 82, in page 139, line 9, leave out 'advisory'
    No. 83, in page 139, line 13, leave out 'advisory'.
    No. 85, in page 139, line 15, at end, insert—
    '(2A) There shall be appointed by the Authority for each area, a Chairman who has an interest in the fisheries within the area and members nominated by riparian owners and anglers representative of rivers and still waters within the area. The number of members appointed shall not exceed twenty and will vary according to the extent of the fisheries within the area'.
    No. 84, in page 139, line 17, leave out 'an advisory' and insert 'a'.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Onslow: I do not want to delay the House, so I shall be brief as possible. I should first declare an interest. I am a riparian owner, in a small way. I have been a keen fisherman for many years, I have fished in many parts of the British Isles and I sit on a number of bodies that represent anglers collectively such as the Anglers Co-operative Association, the Salmon and Trout Association and the British Field Sports Society. The points that I want to make are not mine alone, but are shared by many anglers. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure them.
    The most important amendment of the group is No. 80. I shall concentrate mainly on that, with a few words about amendments Nos. 153 and 85. The others are purely consequential.
    I hope that the House will agree that amendment No. 80 has three things to commend it: it would improve the representation of anglers in fishery matters; it would improve the management of fisheries, and it could, I think, be accepted without damaging a principle that the Government hold dear, which is that the National Rivers Authority should not be undercut by having its powers limited by decision of Parliament. The powers of the NRA will derive from the House, and some hon. Members may feel that it should have more, but my argument will relate to the NRA's use of powers that we know it will have, one of which is the power to levy charges on anglers and owners and occupiers of fisheries through licences or other means.
    I invite the Minister to anticipate Government amendment No. 5, which we may or may not get a chance to debate in the later stages of the Bill. He will at least agree that that sets out clearly that the NRA will have considerable powers to levy charges. It does not say how the money is to be spent or who is to spend it, but I am nevertheless attracted by the proposition that those who
    1204
    contribute should have some say in deciding how the money is to be spent. I hope that the Minister will agree that that proposition is basically a democratic one and accept its corollary, which is that they can have such powers only if they are delegated to the regional fisheries committee, on which we hope and believe anglers will be powerfully represented. It is hard to envisage what checks there will be on the NRA's fisheries activities if that does not happen.
    While I have no quarrel with the choice of Lord Crickhowell as chairman-designate of the NRA and I am glad to discover that Lord Mason is to be at his elbow —and I know both of them to be keen and experienced anglers—we cannot look forward with confidence to keen and experienced anglers always occupying those positions. We must anticipate circumstances in which it might, more than ever, be necessary for anglers to have more say in the management of their fisheries.
    A number of anglers are not as confident as one would wish them to be that all will be well under the proposed NRA structure. Broadly speaking, the anglers support the Bill, for very good reasons. They have always been in the forefront of the fight against pollution, and they regard the separation of the powers of the water authority as managers and the NRA as inspectors as an important step forward. It would be wrong, however, for Ministers to suppose that all anglers take an entirely rosy view of the future. In that context, I can do no better than to quote from a letter sent by a keen and experienced angler who has considerable reservations about the circumstances that will prevail once the NRA is established:
    "The Regional Organisation at present envisaged is simply a carbon copy of the existing W.A.'s perpetuating most of their faults and even introducing new ones"
    He adds:
    "it is absolutely certain that the legal obligation of the present W.A.'s and the future N.R.A. to maintain, improve, and develop fisheries has no chance whatever of being fulfilled without River Catchment Fishery Committees with executive powers.
    The justification for this categorical statement is simply that the Fishery Organisation of the present W.A.'s has not always proved satisfactory because the Fishery Function was far too small and often considered unimportant in far too large an organisation for anyone of importance to take any interest in it. Officers, at least in some W.A.'s, have therefore been able to ignore Advisory Committees and to take decisions—or fail to take decisions—in situations that they really did not understand. Experts are dangerous unless they are responsible to an informed and confident lay committee. They need to be questioned and forced to justify their case".
    Of course, in the House we spend our time questioning and seeking Ministers' justification for their cases. I hope that Ministers would not object to that pressure. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not think that this is too much to ask of the NRA.
    The letter goes on:
    "Fisheries may be very small compared with most of the other proposed functions of the NRA, but from the point of view of recreation, conservation and the environment they are most important."
    I do not believe that any hon. Member would challenge that view. I hope, too, that there is general agreement with the proposition that anglers are entitled to a real opportunity to make constructive contributions and to participate in the management of the fisheries that they value and enjoy.
    I said earlier that I realised that the Government were anxious not to devalue the NRA by shackling it. If that is what they fear the amendment will do, I hope that they will

    1205
    think again. I certainly hope that the amendment will be used, but it will be for the NRA to use it. I hope that it would willingly and freely delegate powers. I do not believe that it will be jealous and will want to keep the power to itself. I hope that there are not bureaucrats in water authorities' fishery management who will consider that they will have some cosy billet that they can look forward to enjoying, without anyone having any real control over what they do or how the money is spent. I can see no objection to the proposition that the NRA should be empowered to delegate some of its functions to executive regional fishery committees.
    Amendment No. 153 is self-explanatory. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would like a say in the appointment of officers in the NRA, if only so that he can remain accountable to Parliament.
    Amendment No. 85 is simply probing, because I hope that the Minister can indicate how many people and what sort of people he expects will comprise the fishery committees. They should be committees that will be capable of exercising power, even if we do not necessarily feel that they must change their name. Whether we are talking about shooting or matters connected with fishing, we should make it clear that we expect the committees to be noticed. I am afraid that there is some reason to suppose that, when they are given an advisory label—as often happens—they will not be noticed at all.
    Mr. Livsey: Being an angler, I welcome the amendments. Anglers have a great interest in the environment and the purity of water, especially of rivers. I believe that after the Committee stage anglers felt that they were under-represented on the NRA. That was the principle of no taxation without representation. Anglers, after all, who are paying considerable sums of money to enjoy their sport, should be recognised. Indeed, in any delegation of powers to regional authorities anglers should have a proper say in fisheries. The feeling is that they have been shut out in the cold. That is unfortunate, because, if anglers were given the opportunity of executive powers to help develop fisheries, that would have great significance. I believe that that is one of the aims of the amendments.
    To be effective fisheries management must be proactive, and actions such as stocking the rivers with migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout and the like are vital. There is no doubt that our fishing resource is undeveloped and that what exists has substantially deteriorated over the years. There is great work to be done to revive the fisheries in many of our rivers. The expertise that our anglers could provide in that respect could be significant not only in creating a better resource for sport, but in developing tourism and employment opportunities in rural areas.
    Not long ago we spent some time discussing the Salmon Bill and we thought that we had improved matters. However, unless the advisory committees to the NRA have executive powers, angling interests will suffer a considerable setback.
    We all know that angling is the most popular recreation in the United Kingdom, with about 3 million participants. The Bill provides a great opportunity to develop that resource. After all, angling is a pleasant, quiet occupation which is in tune with the environment. Advisory
    1206
    committees which represented angling interests and had executive powers would bring benefit to the rural areas and the waters that flow through them.
    Sir Charles Morrison: Nothing that I say should be taken as a criticism, direct or by implication, of Lord Crickhowell, the chairman-elect, if that is the right description, of the NRA. There is only one weakness in Lord Crickhowell and that is that he is not immortal. That is why I am concerned about the Bill as presently drafted.
    In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) I declare an interest—not as a riparian owner, but as an angler, particularly as I happen to be president of the National Anglers Council. That council claims to represent the millions of anglers of the United Kingdom and their families, who are extremely concerned. The fundamental reason for that concern is that they believe, as I do, that advisory committees have a limited useful life. What will ensure that the NRA will pay any attention to an advisory committee? All too often, advisory committees become a facade to which less and less attention is paid or, in this instance, needs to be paid.
    There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the NRA must pay any attention to the advisory committees. All the Bill says is that those committees must be consulted. To start with, I suspect that will mean something, but as time goes by, it will mean nothing.
    Clause 136(1)(a) imposes a duty on the NRA to
    "maintain, improve and develop salmon fisheries, trout fisheries, freshwater fisheries and eel fisheries"
    What does that mean, precisely? It may mean a great deal to the chairman-elect, Lord Crickhowell, but to his successor that duty may mean little or nothing, or no more than a statement to demonstrate that he is living up to his duty. If the committees established by clause 136 are to mean anything permanent, it is essential to make them more important and give them greater executive power.
    This is emphasised by the fact that much of the funding for fisheries will come from the anglers and riparian owners. They should therefore be represented in a more executive role than is envisaged, and the committees should be strengthened in the Bill. Those committees should not be composed of people whom the NRA considers to be interested in the issues involved. They should have a definite interest in those issues, as is made clear in the amendment. The committee chairmen should be appointed by the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, and not by the NRA, which may have a vested interest in having a weak person, or even a placeman, at the helm.
    After all, these committees amount to quangos and could be a nice way of pensioning off some good party hack who seems to have done his bit over the years. The chairmen of these committees should be appointed by the responsible Minister, and that would ensure that the chairmen and committee members would not act entirely in accord with, and comfortably alongside, the NRA.
    Each committee should be a consistent and continuing gadfly in the side of the NRA, and for that to happen, the NRA should not be responsible for appointing the membership and the chairmen and for consulting them, which, as I say, could mean something or nothing. I hope that the Minister will give this issue further thought, if he cannot accept the amendment.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Allen McKay: In debating an earlier amendment I mentioned my constituent Mr. Crofts, who is chairman of the South Yorkshire anglers association. I quoted from a letter he sent me, but I omitted a part of it that is relevant to the issue we are now discussing.
    I hope that the Minister has noted that, despite the lateness of the hour, we have a coalition of Back Benchers in favour of the amendment. I agreed with everything that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about anglers and, not being an angler, I can stand back and take a dispassionate look at what the angling associations do.
    My local authority has approached anglers on many occasions to seek their views about the quality of the rivers and similar matters. We have always found them extremely helpful, and their services are given free. The amendment would not cost anything to implement, so the Government cannot accuse us of demanding large sums of money, an accusation that they have made during our consideration of the Bill.
    My constituent Mr. Crofts refers in his letter to the whole stretch of the River Don down to below Sheffield. Using his own time and money and by his own efforts, he uses information from the water authority sampling stations to keep a check on that stretch of river. He does that because, as an angler, he is interested in the conservation of the countryside and, in particular, of our waterways. He writes about the wildlife that he comes across and the plant life at the side of the river. He gives a report to Yorkshire Water, exactly as suggested in the amendments. We can give such people a place as of right under the Bill. That is all the amendments are asking for.
    Another of my constituents who has written to me has always been a conservationist. He is a farmer and a landowner. He is a lawyer and also a member of the Labour party. He is a very commendable person. He is also an educationist. He is an environmentalist, as are both his sons, who are interested in angling. Someone wants a piece of his land to set up a piggery, so he could make a substantial amount of money by selling the land. He will not sell it, because he does not wish the river to be polluted by the discharge from a piggery; also, he does not think that a piggery would be a good thing environmentally. Although he could make a lot of money, for the sake of angling and river quality, he has decided that the land is better left as it is.
    British Coal has a lease on part of his land for the next 99 years. Although the board has finished with the land, he refuses to release it, because within the lease it has to keep the river clear and clean. Water has to be pumped from the old workings so that it does not pollute the river.
    Those constituents have adopted a commendable attitude. They would be an asset to Yorkshire Water and to the environment if the amendments were accepted. I accept the arguments that have been put from all sides of the House. The Minister should take note of these constructive amendments that would strengthen the National Rivers Authority. Unless it is well funded, it will not have teeth. The amendments would strengthen it, without extra funding, and would make it more acceptable to the great body of conservationists who look after the environment and enjoy their fishing at the same time.
    Mr. Boateng: I was concerned at the rather unseemly outbreak of consensus among the parties, but when I saw the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) making his entry I knew that any hope of consensus had gone out of the window. I expect numerous interventions from the hon. Gentleman in his usual, firmly sedentary position, but he may yet surprise us and manage to contain himself. We shall have to see.
    I do not want anything that I say to break the consensus that has emerged. I do not have an interest to declare. I am not a riparian owner. My little plot is some half a mile away from the river in Brent. In a borough where much changes, the river seems to be firmly established and is not likely to come my way.
    I am very fond of fish, not just for their culinary attributes but because they play an enormously important environmental role. They are environmental barometers. When the fish start to go a little green about the gills or, worst of all, upturn altogether, it is obvious that something is wrong with the water.
    My fondness for fish extends to fishermen and all who are connected with angling, of whom there are large numbers in my constituency, which falls within the boundaries of the Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council. It is the particular concerns of that council that I am anxious to share with the House this morning.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Evening.
    Mr. Boateng: It is evening now—it will be morning shortly. I do not wish to anticipate how long I shall take to share with the House the concerns of the Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council.
    Needless to say, within the boundaries of the council there falls the middle section of the River Thames, from Cleeve lock to Mosley lock, including the main tributaries —the Rivers Kennet, Lauden, Pang and Wey, and the rivers running into them, the Whitewater, the Blackwater, the Lambourn, and so on. Amongst those, I might add, is the river Brent. It s possible that some 80,000 to 100,000 anglers use those waters in the course of a year. The Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council does a splendid job and is represented on the regional fisheries advisory committee at Thames Water. It is precisely because of the job that that body does—the service and benefit that it provides to anglers—that I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
    There are a number of issues that the Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council is anxious that we should have at the forefront of our minds in considering the merits of these amendments. Its concern about water obstruction is very real. It is anxious that there should be a review of water obstruction licences and that, wherever possible, they should be withdrawn. If feels, with cause, that within the Thames Water region there are sufficient licences to take out more water than is available. Fortunately, the CEGB does not demand its full capacity, but obstructions are having an adverse effect on the streams. Some have been lost, and rivers have been downgraded in terms of water flow.
    It is on precisely this sort of issue that anglers and fisheries interests are well able to bring their particular expertise and concern to bear. As has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House, one does not want a situation in which those people are relegated to a merely advisory and consultative role. There is a part for them to

    1209
    play in monitoring the environmental quality of our rivers, and they should be encouraged and assisted, as these amendments seek to encourage and assist them, to that end. River quality objectives are also a matter of concern to my angling constituents and their council. They are concerned that, at present, the quality of our rivers is determined against a set of criteria which include both chemical and biological components.
    It is believed that, if fisheries are to flourish, with properly structured ecosystems, those criteria ought not to be downgraded. In particular, there is concern about the biological element and about the importance of ensuring that, because the chemical criteria can be met in water conditions incompatible with fish, the biological criteria must be taken on board. Those people want to see the river quality objectives protected and, wherever possible, enhanced. If the amendments are accepted, as I hope that they will be—I hope that the Minister will at least take some steps in that direction—interested bodies would be in a position to ensure that the river quality objectives are protected.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept an invitation to come down to Dorset with me, with or without his five children. I will show him the River Allen, which has exactly the problems of over-abstraction that he has described. I was therefore interested to hear what he had to say.
    Mr. Boateng: I shall be delighted to come down to Dorset, with my five children whom the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister of State expresses concern that they might be disciplined in a car park. I assure him that that occurs but rarely, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) would not take us anywhere near any car parks. Moreover, I am confident that we shall be able to regulate the children's behaviour in the ordinary way, which does not involve disciplining in car parks—it involves a hard stare, with the promise of discipline to come if they do not respond to the stare. That is how one deals with children. I am sure that that view strikes a chord with a number of Conservative Members —[HON. MEMBERS: "In the Whips Office."] I do not wish to be sidetracked, least of all down the avenue of the Whips Office.
    It is important that we should recognise exactly what is happening in some parts of the River Thames, especially the mid-Thames which affects my constituents in Brent. I will give the House just one example which has been drawn to my attention by the Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council. The native cray fish has virtually been destroyed by the disease brought in by the single cray fish——
    Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman would read the brief properly, he would realise that it is the signal cray fish. May we please have an end to this and a reply from the Minister?
    Mr. Boateng: I resent that intervention as the Mid Thames Fisheries Consultative Council has done its best to provide me with a proper and accurate briefing. A simple typographical error is no cause for the hon. Gentleman to sneer. He should not imagine that anglers come only from
    1210
    the country interests that he so stoutly represents. There are many urban anglers and I am determined that their voice should be heard today. Urban anglers are extremely concerned about the cray fish and about the spring viraemia of carp which has forced the closure of a local fishery. A ban exists at the moment——
    Mr. Morley: I wish to reinforce my hon. Friend's remarks about the way in which anglers are spread across a wide spectrum of society and regions. I received letters from the Appleby and Froddingham angling club, which was formed at the old steelworks and which has one of the largest memberships of any angling club in my region. Its members are all steelworkers and they have expressed many of the concerns that my hon. Friend has put so eloquently about water quality standards and the influence of the fisheries advisory committees. They feel that at present the fisheries advisory committees are not given the influence that they deserve.
    Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who has a wealth of experience in these matters which he brought to bear over many hours in Committee. We are grateful to him. He is right that this issue goes right across the board.
    In conclusion, one wants a strong voice to be given to angling interests and to see them have proper representation, with means and resources to make their voice heard and to make it count, so that they can deliver the goods not only to anglers and fishermen, whether urban or rural, but to all of us who benefit from a safe, clean environment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): As my hon. and learned Friends the Minister for Water and Planning and the Solicitor-General know, I have for a long time been an eager proponent of reform of our legal system. If I harboured any doubts about my desires for reform, they were dispelled by listening to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) acknowledges—a solicitor.
    Mr. Soames: He is indeed.
    Mr. Ryder: As a solicitor he deserves a wider audience. He is a powerful advocate and, if the Lord Chancellor's recommendations in the Green Paper ever come into law, the hon. Gentleman will do very well out of them.
    Many important points have been raised during our brief debate, and related issues have also been brought to the fore by the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). The debate will be followed by not only anglers but others who have interests in fisheries. In the remaining time available to me I shall try to answer some of those points.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking was concerned that, in the past, fisheries had had too small a voice in the water authorities. I take issue with him on that matter and I should certainly have to deny that that would be the case in the new National Rivers Authority. In addition to the regional fisheries committees, my right hon. Friend the Minister is to appoint a fisheries member to the main NRA board, and fisheries will be represented on the new regional rivers advisory committees.
    Fisheries will, and must, in recognition of their importance, have a powerful voice. The Government have

    1211
    no doubts about the importance of fisheries. That is why they want to ensure, through the Bill, that my right hon. Friend the Minister retains one appointment to the NRA board.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking was also concerned about the competence of the committees and the NRA to administer fisheries. I have heard that view expressed before, although not particularly widely. It was my impression that the water authorities, with the aid of their regional fisheries advisory committees, had exercised their fisheries function admirably in the past, and I have every reason to believe that the NRA—as an important national body—will have an even greater opportunity to co-ordinate and develop fisheries policies, building on the sound foundation laid down by the water authorities.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes tabled a number of amendments. I shall deal with each in turn. Amendment No. 153 aims to give my right hon. Friend the Minister more powers than envisaged under present legislation. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes intend, through the amendment, to give the Minister more powers, I cannot accept the amendment.
    As I have said, the NRA will be an important and—I stress the word—autonomous national body, charged, among other things, with maintaining, improving and developing the salmon, trout, eel and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales. That will be the responsibility of the national corporate body. Of course, the NRA will discharge that responsibility through a strong, regional organisation—that is essential given the great diversity of our fisheries.
    However, it will be for the NRA to decide the membership of its regional advisory committees, including their chairmen. I stress to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking that Ministers will appoint members to the NRA main board. I have already referred to the one person to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will co-ordinate the authority's regional fisheries advisory activity and will oversee the way in which the NRA's fisheries responsibilities are being discharged in each of its regions.
    Amendments Nos. 79 and 85 would limit the membership of the regional fisheries advisory committes to people who are directly interested in fisheries in a particular area. I have to tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the environmentalist to whom he referred would be excluded if the amendment were accepted. If we divided on it, he would have to vote against it.
    Only anglers' representatives and riparian owners could be appointed. There would be no place for representatives of netsmen or fish farmers. It would not be possible, as has been the general practice, for the chairmen of the regional flood defence committees to sit on the committees. Nor would it be open to the NRA under amendment No. 85 to include environmental, scientific or any other interests on the committees. I believe that it is essential that the NRA should be allowed the maximum flexibility in establishing these committees to appoint relevant interests on a local basis, according to local needs and circumstances.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking argued that the powers to delegate fisheries to the regional
    1212
    fisheries advisory committees would be entirely permissive. However, I would have considerable difficulty about accepting the principle that functions should be delegated to the committees, now or at a later date. The RFACs have always been advisory in nature. There has been no suggestion that this advisory nature has been ineffective in the protection of fisheries' interests in the water authorities. Indeed, I believe that the RFACs are widely regarded as having made a highly significant contribution to the conservation and management of fisheries by the water authorities.
    The question to be addressed is this: how would things change for the better by delegating to the committees some of the NRA's functions? I am afraid that the case for that is still to be made. I am still unclear about what kinds of responsibility might be delegated and how the committees would effectively discharge those responsibilities.
    Moreover, I fear that this may result in an undermining of the NRA at both regional and national levels as a new, cohesive and effective national autonomous body. It seems to me that fisheries' interests might not be best served by encouraging the degree of separation implied by specific and executive powers. The great thing about fisheries' interests in the water authorities—this will be much more so in the NRA—is the central role they have occupied in recreational and environmental matters. Fisheries cannot be divorced from water chemistry and quality, or land drainage and flood protection—or matters of access and river basin usage. My worry is that the amendments could tend to diminish that role and the freedom of fisheries' interests at all levels to act as an influence for the good of their own cause. We want the NRA to pull together a coherent national strategy for the maintenance, improvement and development of salmon, trout, eel and freshwater fisheries.
    I hope that I have answered many of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking wishes, I will respond again.
    Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sorry that I have not been able to persuade him. In the certain knowledge that these matters can and will be raised again in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 10, in page 139, line 15, at end insert—
    `and it shall be the duty of the Authority in determining the regions for which regional advisory committees are established and maintained to ensure that one of those regions consists (apart from territorial waters) wholly or mainly of or of most of Wales.'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

  Clause 161

    DIRECTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY ETC
    Amendments made: No. 94, in page 161, line 16, leave out
    `or the commercial interests of any person'.
    No. 95, in page 161, line 21, leave out
    `or the commercial interests of some other person'.—[Mr.Ryder.]
    Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Chapman.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

    Legal Aid
    12 midnight
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
    That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed also the next two motions:
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    That the draft Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1989, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps it would also be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the six Opposition prayers:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Duty Solicitor) (Remuneration) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 341), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 340), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations (Remuneration) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 342), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 343), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 338), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 344), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that there is no objection to that.
    The Solicitor-General: All the regulations relate to legal aid or to advice and assistance. They are made under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and constitute a package designed to implement the Act from 1 April.
    Within the framework of the 1988 Act this package will form the basis of the operation of legal aid for the coming years. Subject to a few specific exceptions, the regulations for the most part recreate the existing arrangements. However, the opportunity has been taken to carry out some measure of consolidation and revision and to give effect to some of the recommendations accepted by the Government in their White Paper on legal aid which foreshadowed the Legal Aid Act 1988. The regulations have been subject to wide consultation in draft.
    The biggest change is that the responsibility for the administration of legal aid will pass from the Law Society to the new Legal Aid Board. I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the service which the Law Society has provided to the
    1214
    public in administering legal aid for nearly 40 years. It might also be appropriate at the same time to wish the Legal Aid Board well in taking up the functions that the Law Society is now relinquishing.
    The most significant of the regulations are the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations which prescribe the scope of ABWOR—assistance by way of representation—as well as of green form assistance. In the White Paper on legal aid in 1987 the Government announced their decision that assistance in the making of wills and conveyancing should not normally be paid for out of public funds, and that they would take steps to restrict the green form scheme in those areas. In any publicly funded scheme such as legal aid the money available cannot be unbounded. It must, therefore, be directed to those areas where it is most needed and away from areas where there is a lesser need.
    The Government have concluded that the use of green form advice and assistance to carry out a conveyance or to make a will are just such areas of lesser need. It cannot be right that the taxpayer should be asked to subsidise those who simply wish to arrange their own affairs. However, we have recognised that in particular cases there may be special needs and we have sought to ensure that hardship is not caused to vulnerable people as a result of the proposed change. Accordingly, the draft regulations contain a series of exceptions from the general exclusion of conveyancying and will-making from the green form scheme.
    The Lord Chancellor's Department, following wide consultation, has provided that conveyancing services will continue to be available under the green form scheme in all cases where they are necessary in order to give effect to any court order, effect to the terms of a settlement in a divorce and to rental purchase agreements or conditional sales. Those are methods of house purchase where, unlike a purchase under a mortgage where the property is transferred immediately but acts as security for a loan, the ownership of the property does not change hands until the final instalment of the purchase money has been paid.
    Participants in such transactions, who tend to be at the lower end of the housing market, can often find themselves in difficulties. Nevertheless, although the provision of conveyancing services is generally to be excluded from the green form scheme, I should stress that other forms of advice and assistance in relation to housing or land law are not. Thus, for example, a leaseholder concerned over his or her position under the lease may receive advice under the green form scheme. If, however, the advice is that some form of conveyance is required, the leaseholder will usually have to pay for that conveyance. In the area of will-making, advice and assistance will continue to be available for wills to be made by those aged 70 or over, by single parents wishing to appoint a testamentary guardian, by the physically or mentally disabled and the mentally ill, and by a parent or guardian who wishes to provide for such a disabled person.
    The remainder of the scope regulations set out the extent to which ABWOR will be available. Subject to certain modifications, the regulations extend ABWOR to those areas where it is currently available. However, there are three differences. First, during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill the Lord Chancellor agreed that all child care proceedings should be treated in the same way for legal aid purposes. As a result, all child care proceedings attract legal aid under part VI of the Act, which is granted by the

    1215
    court and not by the Legal Aid Board. Some of the proceedings relating to child care that now appear in part VI previously attracted ABWOR. As legal aid can now be granted by the magistrates court in question, ABWOR is no longer required and the regulations do not extend it to any of the proceedings for which legal aid is available under part VI.
    The second difference concerns the duty solicitor schemes at magistrates courts provided under the Legal Aid Act 1982. Technically, those services constituted a distinct form of legal aid, that is "advice and representation". Under the Legal Aid Act 1988, "advice and representation" became part of ABWOR and the regulations therefore extend ABWOR to cover all representation within the scope of the existing duty solicitor scheme.
    The third qualification relates to the granting of ABWOR by a magistrates court or county court. At present, a magistrates court or county court may approve the provision of assistance by way of representation by a solicitor who is at that time in the precincts of the court and whose client is not already in receipt of legal aid. Those arrangements bypass the normal mechanisms for the granting of ABWOR through the Law Society and are intended to provide for representation where it is required as a matter of urgency. The regulations will ensure that such arrangements will continue. However, the wording of the regulations has been revised to make it clear that ABWOR is to be made available by that means only in cases where there is a genuine urgent need and not as a form of routine provision of representation—as has been happening in some places—or as a means of avoiding the usual application procedures.
    Mr. David Ashby: Will representation at magistrates courts still be available under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where there is extended detention?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, but I shall check and confirm that that is the case when I wind up.
    The next set of regulations for which approval is sought are those reproducing the effect of the existing Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1977, which exclude civil legal aid from undefended divorce proceedings, subject to certain exceptions where full representation is required. The new regulations simply recreate the existing position.
    The final measure requiring affirmative resolution is the Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1989. The Legal Aid Board's functions in relation to legal aid in criminal or child care proceedings are extremely limited. However, at present criminal legal aid committees of the Law Society may hear applications for review of a refusal by magistrates courts to grant criminal legal aid. They may also hear other applications in relation to the amendment or withdrawal of legal aid in criminal or child care proceedings and applications for prior authority to incur expenditure.
    The order gives the Legal Aid Board the necessary power to enable its area committees to carry out the same functions. It will allow the existing arrangements to continue in effect unchanged. The order will also allow the Legal Aid Board to take over responsibility for the promotion and publicity of criminal legal aid. That function has hitherto been carried out by the Lord
    1216
    Chancellor's Department. The board already has responsibility for publicity in relation to civil legal aid and advice and assistance.
    Turning to the regulations that have been prayed against, the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations generally seek to recreate the existing position and follow the current regulations closely. However, they contain the financial eligibility limits relating to civil legal aid that previously appeared in primary legislation. The Lord Chancellor increased a number of the legal aid financial eligibility limits relating to civil and criminal legal aid and to advice and assistance. Those increases are generally of the order of 4·7 per cent., which reflects the rise in the level of social security benefits. However, the capital limit above which civil legal aid is not normally available has been raised by 20 per cent. to £6,000. He has also increased the capital allowances made for dependants in assessing eligibility for advice and assistance by nearly 68 per cent. to £335 for the first dependant, £200 for the second and £100 for other dependants. The limits governing the amount by which an assisted person's resources may change before they have to be reassessed have been substantially expanded for both criminal and civil legal aid. There is no reassessment for advice and assistance.
    The regulations also implement a recommendation of the legal aid advisory committee that the resources of cohabitants should be treated in the same way as those of married couples in assessing legal aid eligibility. Their resources are already treated in the same way for determining eligibility for social security benefits. The legal aid allowances available to spouses will now extend to cohabiting partners. That applies in both civil and criminal legal aid, and in advice and assistance.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree that that will effectively remove a number of people from the legal aid system? Does he further agree that in cases in which the opposing parties are cohabitees, they will be effectively banned from legal aid?
    The Solicitor-General: I certainly do not agree will the hon. Gentleman's first point. Extending to cohabiting partners the legal aid provision available to spouses can be beneficial, depending on the incomes of the respective partners.
    The Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) Regulations are the result of a consolidation exercise, but, again, seek generally to recreate the current position. However, they also introduce some useful reforms. They provide for there to be a single common and mandatory application form for criminal legal aid in the Crown court and magistrates courts. The use of that form should assist in the provision of uniform information and, together with revised guidance on the grant of legal aid, lead to a more consistent approach on the grant or refusal of applications.
    As was announced in the White Paper in 1987, court staff are to be able to refuse as well as grant criminal legal aid. The arrangements set out in the regulations will enable a justices' clerk or the appropriate Crown court officer to refuse any application in the first instance. That will speed up the process of handling applications and lead to applicants receiving earlier notification of the decision. However, the existing arrangements for appeals against

    1217
    refusal remain and will continue unchanged, and an application may be renewed to the court at any time. Officials will not be able to refuse applications after the first time. The regulations also provide that only judges may make or refuse a legal order for the assignment of more than one counsel, subject to a limited exception in respect of the magistrates court, and may have regard to the choice of the assisted person.
    The Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations relate to ordinary green form, ABWOR and the duty solicitor schemes in magistrates courts and at police stations. I have already mentioned the regulations which relate to the scope of advice and assistance and which require an affirmative resolution. Because of the need to deal with scope in separate regulations, the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations which do not require affirmative resolution have had to be recast and as a result have a new appearance, but, for the most part, they have the same effect.
    However, the House may know that the Lord Chancellor has agreed to the raising of the administrative cost limits for the green form scheme from its present £50, or £90 for the preparation of a divorce petition or judicial separation. The regulations now set the limit as the equivalent of two hours' preparation work, or three hours in connection with divorce or judicial separation. That means that in 1989–90 the cost limits will now be £73 and £109·50p respectively for most of the country and £77·50 and £116·25 in London. Moreover, the £50 limit applicable to advice and assistance at police stations in respect of non-arrestable offences has been abolished. All advice and assistance at police stations will now attract the higher and extendable limit.
    The Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations from which the Opposition have withdrawn a prayer give effect to the Government's decision, announced in the White Paper, that solicitors should be required to certify to the Legal Aid Board that public funding for the case is still reasonable when applying for a payment on account. It is intended that the report from solicitors should be required 18 months from the date on which the legal aid certificate was first issued—18 months being the limit on which an initial payment on account can be sought. It is therefore proposed that the Legal Aid Board should automatically send out to a solicitor a request for a report at the same time as it advises the solicitor of the entitlement to make a claim for payment on account. The regulations repeat the effect of the recent regulations which permit the postponement of the enforcement of the statutory charge in appropriate cases and the payment of interest on the postponed sum. They do not extend the scope for postponement beyond those cases already provided for.
    The remaining regulations prescribe the rates of remuneration for solicitors providing advice and assistance at police stations and duty solicitor services at magistrates courts, and for the rates of remuneration payable to solicitors and barristers undertaking criminal and child care legal aid work. These rates also apply to ABWOR and to civil legal aid in the magistrates courts. The rates payable are to be increased by 6 per cent. from 1 April. Moreover, duty solicitors who attend magistrates courts on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays will in
    1218
    future be paid at an enhanced rate, and new and higher rates of remuneration are introduced for solicitors undertaking child care work in the magistrates courts.
    The regulations have inadvertently created an anomaly whereby a duty solicitor who provides assistance by way of representation in relation to a warrant of further detention in unsocial hours will be paid less than he is now. As a result the Lord Chancellor will be making further regulations, to take effect from 1 April, to rectify that anomaly.
    The rates of payment for legal aid work have been set following extensive discussions with both sides of the profession. In reaching a view on the increase to be awarded this year, the Lord Chancellor took into account the factors set out in the Legal Aid Act 1988.
    Overall, the proposed package forms a sound basis for the future operation of legal aid and contains some useful reforms. I invite the House to approve the three draft instruments laid before it on 3 March and reject the motions praying against the other regulations.
    12.15 am
    Mr. John Fraser: As a solicitor holding a practising certificate, I declare an interest.
    I should make it clear to people who follow our proceedings that due to the lateness of the hour we have been disabled from voting on our prayers against statutory instruments Nos. 338 to 343. Had we been able to do so, we should have voted to oppose those instruments, which introduce the new rules and take into account the resources of a cohabitee—or cohabitees in the case of a bigamist. We should have expressed our indignation at the miserly increase of 6 per cent. in legal aid fees for criminal legal aid work. That is well below the rate of inflation and far less than the profession asked for in its discussions with the Lord Chancellor.
    We oppose the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 because of their new restriction on advice about making wills and property transactions and the likelihood that they are a precursor of further restrictions on green form advice. We further oppose the regulations because of the restrictions described by the Solicitor-General on the growing duty solicitor schemes in county courts. We shall vote against those regulations as a token of our opposition to the other orders, to which we take exception but on which we shall be unable to vote.
    The regulations confirm a pattern in the reduction of the number of people who are eligible for legal aid. In 1950, 80 per cent. of the population were eligible, but by 1974 the figure had fallen to about 40 per cent. In 1979, the Lord Chancellor announced that eligibility would be raised to restore it to 80 per cent. of the population, as had obtained when the scheme was first introduced in 1950.
    In 1986, when Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, the allowances were down-rated, leading to an extra 25,000 applications for legal aid being withdrawn or refused. That was the first occasion on which there had been a deliberate reduction in eligibility. In 1989, compared with when the scheme first started, only about 50 per cent. of the population are eligible. I used population figures because using the percentage of households as a measure of eligibility for legal aid can be highly misleading, for reasons too complex to go into now. Between 1979 and 1986, about a quarter of the population lost access and

    1219
    eligibility to legal aid. The policy has been to reverse the open and universal access to justice that the legal aid and advice schemes are intended to implement.
    I should be grateful if, in winding up, the Solicitor-General would give us his estimate of the percentage of the adult population—not of households —currently eligible for legal aid, and the extent to which the percentage has fallen since 1986. That question has been asked of the Law Officers and of the Lord Chancellor for the past year and I should be grateful to have the figures tonight. All the signs are that eligibility is continuing to shrink and that the regulations—not dramatically, but to some degree—will continue that process. There is no doubt that the new cohabitation rules on contributions will further reduce eligibility without any compensating increase in the cover of legal aid. They represent not an adjustment between one class of people applying for legal aid and another, but an attempt by the Treasury to claw back an admittedly modest amount of legal aid resources.
    The new rules are at best impracticable and at worst oppressive. From my experience of criminal legal aid cases, extra-marital partnerships are common but not easy to define. They are often unstable and a common law partnership may dissolve as a consequence of the alleged offence. The advocate will have to make a judgment not only about the quality of the defence and the way in which it will be necessary to plead and present the evidence, but about the quality of the relationship—often, as a duty solicitor, having to work in a short time spane. He may have to ask questions in a difficult situation about relationships between a man and a woman, rather than getting on with representation of the case.
    Those are the reasons why the new rules will be impracticable, but they may also be oppressive. There is no point in having contribution regulations unless one believes in the theory that the common law spouse or partner will contribute the amount that the regulations take into account. In practice, it is a different story. If Janet and John are living together, we cannot assume that Janet—assuming she has an income—will stump up to pay for John's defence when he is on a burglary charge or that she will contribute to the cost of custody proceedings between her common law husband and his previous wife.
    The Solicitor-General may say that rules exist at present for contributions between husbands and wives and that the cohabition rules will extend that practice to those in common law relationships. There are three points about that. First, the existing joint contribution rules are already oppressive. One has only to ask any unemployed man who has run out of his entitlement to unemployment benefit after 300 days or so and who finds that he has no entitlement to any other benefit because his wife is working. Many married people regard the cohabitation rule, which applies to the married and the unmarried, as oppressive. People do not welcome it.
    Secondly, the trend in our taxation is to favour separate assessment far more than joint assessment. The Solicitor-General is therefore running contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in relation to income tax. Thirdly, the cohabitee does not possess the property rights that a wife has. The common law wife may be asked to contribute towards her partner's defence, but if he later throws her out of the joint home which is in his name only, she will have no protection. There is not an exact equality
    1220
    of interest and rights between the common law spouse and the married spouse. That is a reason for not extending the rules to cover common law relationships.
    Another important point is that not once in the course of debates on the Legal Aid Bill in 1988 was it suggested that there would be what is now a fairly major change in contribu-tion relations. The common law spouse con tribution principle is being slipped through Parliament after midnight without any possibility of voting on it. That is not just wrong in principle—it is an abuse of the procedures of the House. An unfair and impracticable system is being introduced without proper parliamentary consideration and without any chance for Parliament to reach a decision on that aspect of the regulations.
    As for the reduction in green form cover, in practice there has already been a considerable reduction in the availability or use of legal advice and assistance. Between April 1988 and January 1989, one in 13 potential users of the green form scheme dropped out, mainly due to rising housing costs, which are not deductible under the green form scheme—particularly the increases in mortgage repayments engineered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now the scope of the advice scheme is to be restricted in respect of certain aspects of wills and conveyancing.
    The green form scheme was described in the Lord Chancellor's Department study as
    "efficient and most cost-effective"
    and the restriction will save only a tiny percentage of the cost of legal advice and assistance, at the expense of poor people who exceptionally—already the occasions are fairly rare—require advice on a will or property transaction. The scheme will be complicated by a list of difficult exceptions —for instance, by the confusing proposition that one can get a will under the green form system if one is poor and over 70 but not if one is poor and merely an old-age pensioner. Moreover, the savings from disallowance will be tiny.
    Coupled with our views on that is our regret at the ending of duty solicitor schemes in the county courts, which look after people facing eviction. Such people can get representation in the court because a rota system has been introduced by a local law society. The Solicitor-General seems to dismiss such schemes as affording representation to people who do not really need it. I do not regard it as a luxury to provide legal aid to someone faced with losing their home and perhaps with moving into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, especi-ally as the state will be faced with meeting the cost of such accommodation. It may well save money for the local authority and for the family involved and also save the time of the court. It is very much to be regretted that the scheme is to be cut.
    The Government's game is not worth the candle ends that it will save. We fear that this is just the first cut, which may lead to cuts in important areas of advice—on immigration or housing generally. If the Solicitor-General can give a solemn assurance that this is the last and only restriction of the scope of the scheme, perhaps he will intervene to say so—if not, we fear that the proposals represent the first step in the erosion of the green form legal aid scheme.
    So far, I have discussed the steps which erode the legal aid scheme and restrict access to it. I want now to deal with remuneration for legal aid work, and what is, in my view and in that of most commentators, a wholly inadequate

    1221
    rise in pay for those engaged in criminal legal aid work on a wholly inadequate base. A year ago, a Law Society survey of criminal legal aid work found that 40 per cent. of solicitors' offices had given up, or were seriously thinking of giving up, criminal legal aid work, and 80 per cent. gave low pay as their reason. A year later a study appeared, the results of which were sensational. Both the method used and the authors of the survey, conducted by Touche Ross, are unimpeachable.
    Touche Ross found that the overwhelming number of firms involved in criminal legal aid work do it at a loss. The average profit ratio in the provinces was minus 33 per cent. —the average, of, course, includes those making a profit as well as those making a loss—and in London it was minus 44 per cent. Out of 8,000 firms doing legal aid work, only 70 firms in London were grossing more than £100,000, which is not a great deal in terms of legal aid income, and making a profit, and 450 firms in the provinces were grossing more than £50,000 per year. If all the firms losing money dropped out, only one tenth of those offices now doing criminal legal aid work would be left in business. That would be an enormous reduction in choice and access for criminal legal aid defences.
    The orders raise remuneration by 6 per cent., with enhancements for unsocial hours and Saturdays, when evidence shows that last year many firms were making a loss and thinking of giving up legal aid work altogether, inflation is already 7 per cent. and likely to go higher, and salary rises for solicitors generally are charted as running at about 15 per cent. per annum.
    The Lord Chancellor is an advocate and a friend of market forces. He believes in the market forces philosophy for the law, but he obviously does not believe, any more than the Government do, that there should be a market rate for the job. The 6 per cent. increase is a miserly rise on a loss-making base and it will drive even more firms to make a loss. In those circumstances, it is an abuse of people with a sense of duty. The same kind of abuse has been inflicted on others who have ethical rules and perform public duties, such as doctors and nurses in the National Health Services and teachers and lecturers in the education service. It means that the quality of representation will be at risk. The more experienced advocates will give up criminal legal aid work and will be replaced by the less experienced. The danger is that there will be a second-class service on second-class pay. Firms will be supported by a cost subsidy from more profitable private work of the sort that the Lord Chancellor is putting into the melting pot with the legal services review.
    We all recognise that legal aid work will always be less remunerative than private work, even though the cash flow on legal aid work is much worse than on private work. There will always be some differential between the rates of remuneration for the two kinds of work, but it is grossly unjust that the rates for legal aid work are so far below the market rate as to make it a predominantly loss-making activity for the people involved.
    I will adopt some of the arguments of Andrew Thomas —my partner, but also a member of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group—when commenting on the gross discrepancy between the rates of remuneration for those doing legal aid work and those doing private work. He said that remuneration is based on an utterly wrong
    1222
    principle. We do not pay a judge less money when he is trying a legal aid case than he would be paid trying a private case. We do not pay the policeman who arrests the man who will receive legal aid less money than the policeman who arrests someone who will be privately represented. We do not discriminate in that way.
    We do not pay the Lord Chancellor less money when sitting in that part of the Lord Chancellor's Department which deals with legal aid as opposed to that part of the Department which deals with other matters. The Solicitor-General will not take a 50 per cent. cut in his pay to participate in a debate in unsocial hours because we are discussing legal aid rather than some other aspect of legal work such as the law of property legislation that we were discussing in committee 14 hours ago. We do not pay a jury a lower allowance for trying a man who is legally aided as opposed to privately defended.
    It is monstrous that a large part of the profession, which now makes heavy losses to deal with criminal aid work, should be penalised because it has a sense of duty and because it is tied to the system. Such people are cross-subsidised from other forms of work. Because of that we shall have a token vote on one of the regulations. I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board the deep dissatisfaction felt about the restriction and cover of legal aid and about the way in which the professions have been treated.
    12.34 am
    Mr. David Ashby: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for bowling him a googly about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and whether representation will still apply. I now know that the answer is yes, but my hon. and learned Friend has told us that, as a result of the regulations, solicitors who go out to police stations to represent people who are detained for extended periods under PACE will receive less remuneration than hitherto. That worries me greatly and, as the House will know, I voted against the Third Reading of the Bill because of that.
    I considered that the 96 hours of detention were unreasonable and that they represented an affront to civil liberties. The only saving grace in the Bill was the fact that people who were detained for a long time would have representation. If there is any suggestion that, as a result of the regulations, people will not be represented and that solicitors will be unwilling to go out to the police stations, I urge my hon. and learned Friend to come back to the House with amendments. It is essential that such people should be represented.
    When we discussed the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the Government told us not to worry about the 96 hours of detention. They told us that people kept for extended periods would be looked after and represented by solicitors. If, as a result of the regulations, such people are not to be looked after, that represents a breach of the undertaking then given by the Government. That worries me greatly.
    I welcome the safeguards that exist for the disadvantaged regarding wills, but I do not see why legal aid should be extended to people who make wills. I do not see anything wrong in respect of cohabitees. One is dealing with money that goes into the family and if the joint income of cohabitees is above the specified level, I do not

    1223
    see why legal aid should be extended to them. It may be that the level is too low, but I do not disagree with the principle.
    I am disappointed that the regulations have not been extended to cover tribunals. Tribunals are fundamental as they deal with the nitty-gritty of people's lives. What happens to ordinary or disadvantaged people who lose their jobs through unfair dismissal? They go along to a tribunal in the belief that they will receive justice, but they face a wealthy company with an array of solicitors and barristers brought down from London. The ordinary person believes that he will be able to present his case, but he is cross-examined into the ground and overwhelmed. A little bit of legal aid would bring a great deal of justice to such people, and it should be extended to tribunals.
    It is important that we do not forget that we do not have an expensive legal system. While I agree that the total amount of legal aid has greatly increased, we do not have an expensive system of justice. Despite what the popular press says, the remuneration of solicitors and barristers in this country is much lower than the profession gets for ordinary work in France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. If a solicitor or barrister wants to make money, he or she should go to the continent—it can be done now —where the remuneration is four or five times greater than it is here.
    The value of a person being represented in the courts is that it represents an enormous saving in money and time. The cost of cases does not lie in the advocates, as the popular press makes out. The expenditure is to be found in the cost of the buildings. There is a Crown court next door to Harrods; I wonder what that is worth in property terms. Then there are the ushers, police officers, judges, juries and all the back-up staff.
    When a person is properly represented, a great deal of money and time is saved because witnesses are interviewed and only relevant witnesses are called. Experienced lawyers call witnesses to deal only with points that are required and not with peripheral matters or waste the time of the court. No matter what certain people, including the popular press, say, there is little wastage of court time. The efficient lawyer saves an enormous amount of time, and time is money.
    Trying to get law on the cheap only increases overall costs. I had not heard of the report by Touche Ross and I am sorry, if not surprised, to hear that so many solicitors are saying that they will not do criminal legal aid work. I have solicitor friends, and people who have instructed me, who have said that they will not do such work, but most of them have hitherto been saying not quite that.
    They have been saying, "We are making a little loss on the criminal legal aid work. It does not pay much, but we must regard it as swings and roundabouts; we are making a bit on conveyancing and getting some money here and there, so we will do the criminal legal aid work, and overall the practice will be profitable." But now we are faced with a Green Paper and solicitors are finding their conveyancing work under attack. That will reduce the ability of solicitors to subsidise the less profitable areas.
    I do not think we will get much change out of the Lord Chancellor's department and have more money going to legal aid. The overall effect of this concerted attack on the profession will be that the poor person who is just outside the legal aid limits will not be able to find a solicitor. Solicitors will not be prepared to do legal aid work if there is nothing else to subsidise it. The whole issue must be
    1224
    viewed in the round, but I fear that people are not doing that. We are seeing it in bits and pieces. We have the legal aid legislation and the regulations and we have the Green Paper. We are not considering it in the round to try to ensure that solicitors have adequate remuneration for the amount of work that is required.
    For those reasons, I put in my reservations. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take them into account because it is very important to look at the overall picture.
    12.44 am
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I will be extremely brief. Exactly three hours ago, at a quarter to ten, I was responding to a telephone message from a constituent, one of many calls that I was trying to make before the 10 o'clock vote. It happened to be about legal aid. The lady, Mrs. Lane, did not know about the debate that was to take place. She made a few points that are appropriate to raise now, bearing in mind the change in the system.
    I will not give all the details. Mrs. Lane, a young widow, told me about her difficulties. Her house was under constant attack. The police would not do anything; they told her that she needed an injunction. She went to a local solicitor and got an injunction. Her total income—not disposable income—is only £88 per week, made up of the widowed mother's allowance of £51, child benefit of £7 and part-time earnings of £30. She has never received supplementary benefit or any other social security benefit.
    Mrs. Lane got an injunction. The hassle did not stop. Last September, without warning, up popped a bill for £360. It goes without saying that she has no savings. She got in touch with the legal aid authorities in Preston or London; I am not sure which it was. There was no answer. Next, she had bailiffs at the door because she had not paid her bill. She told them to go away.
    Checks were made and it appeared that the authorities had forgotten that she was a single parent and all kinds of things. She has still ended up with a bill for nearly £300. I did not go into all the details because there was not time, but I will provide the Solicitor-General with further details within a few days. I cannot understand how a young widow, who has sought help from the police and who is told to get an injunction, should end up with such a bill when she is struggling along on a low income, without any means-tested benefit. She has been told that she will have to pay off the bill in less than a year. The bill was miscalculated originally, After complaining, she heard nothing until the legal aid authorities sent the bailiffs round.
    That is an example of the disgraceful administration of the legal aid system. I do not want to give any information about her solicitors. They do not seem to have given her the best advice about the circumstances that she would get into. If it helps the Minister, the lady's name is Mrs. Lane and the reference number is 1347118–6. I am told that the legal aid office in Preston knows all about the case.
    Someone should ensure that the legal aid authorities, even under the new system, do not send the bailiffs round to constituents who have legitimately questioned bills, before those constituents have received answers. Whoever is responsible for it, that is disgraceful administration. No doubt the Solicitor-General will be as appalled as I am. I hope that Mrs. Lane will have some respite and that her bill will be checked properly.

    1225
    Taking into account Mrs. Lane's total income and the bill she has to pay, it is outrageous, even considering the figures contained in the regulations, that she has been put in such a position as a result of going to court to defend herself and her daughter because they were under attack. That is the only point I want to make. I hope that the system under the regulations will be better than the system under which my constituent suffered. I hope too that something can be done about her case.
    12.50 am
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief. I shall not go into the merits of the regulations, save to say that statutory instrument 1989, No. 340, and statutory instrument 1989, No. 344, carry the rubric that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of them. I protest at the constitutional outrage that has been visited upon Parliament by the Government. These instruments were sent to the Committee, which, I remind hon. Members, has a duty to report to the House if there are any technical faults, if a Minister is abusing his or her power, if there is a fault in drafting, or if an instrument is ultra vires.
    These two instruments and others in respect of which faults were not found—there is no qualification on the Order Paper—were sent on Thursday and Friday of last week. The Committee meets every Tuesday at 4.15 pm, so it was quite clear to the Government that by the time we received the instruments we would have only one day in which to consider them before reporting to the House. In respect of the two instruments concerned, we have asked the Department for memoranda. That is what we have to do in order to report an instrument to the House. We have to give the Department an opportunity to present its answer to our queries, yet, by so doing, we lose the opportunity to present a report to the House, because the debate is being held tonight.
    There is worse to come. The instruments come into force on 1 April. In the case of statutory instrument No. 344, the fault about which we are particularly concerned involves the calculation of the means of a person being considered for legal aid. Practitioners will be expected to operate this instrument from 1 April, and a parliamentary Committee, whose membership is in accordance with party strengths in the House, is being denied the opportunity to report effectively on it. The Committee is being thwarted in the task that the House has given to it. It really is completely and utterly outrageous.
    There is another point. The Committee arranged to meet the Leader of the House on Tuesday to discuss this very problem. I am talking not just about myself, but about Conservative Members also; they accompanied me to see the Leader of the House. We expressed very strong reservations. We do not wish to see our work set at naught by having instruments debated on such a date and at such a time that the Committee simply cannot do its job. That is what is happening tonight, and it is an abuse of Government powers to trample over a Select Committee of the House in such a way. We have been denied the opportunity to report to the House the defects of an instrument.
    I should point out to the Minister that the defects in respect of these two instruments were not raised by
    1226
    members of the Committee but were brought to our attention by counsel to the Committee. If the Minister is thinking of arguing that somebody on the Committee is playing politics, let him know that that would be quite erroneous. As he knows, our adviser is the counsel to the Speaker, and he advises us purely on technicalities. In any case, the Committee does not deal with the merits of instruments.
    I am sure that I am registering a protest for all members of the Committee, Conservative and Labour alike. It is an abuse of our procedures to bring regulations forward without giving the Committee an opportunity to report, and to do so in such a way that the prayers cannot be dealt with because they were taken after 11.30 pm. The Government are crowding parliamentary time too much. They are getting too much legislation through, and democracy is being trampled on.
    12.55 am
    Mr. Keith Vaz: We must look at the draft regulations in the context of the Government's policies on legal aid and the way in which the profession now views the Government. The profession has lost confidence in the way in which the Government have been operating the legal aid scheme, as have the consumers.
    The past 10 years have seen a multiplicity of legislation that has had a great effect on social and welfare law. Before I was elected to the House, I served as a solicitor in a law centre in Leicester. I hoped that, once elected, I would cease to act as a legal adviser to my constituents. Although I hold a practising certificate and I declare an interest for that, I do not practise as a solicitor.
    All of us who represent inner-city seats know the level of case work at our surgeries that has been generated by the changes in social security law, housing law and immigration law—in all aspects of social welfare law. What we needed from the Government in the regulations was an extension of legal aid and greater provision for those who seek justice through our legal aid system.
    However, what we have is a situation in which consumers cannot afford to go to private solicitors. They cannot afford legal assistance, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, the number of people eligible for legal aid has diminished greatly over the past decade. Many people cannot afford to go to solicitors or to pay for the cost of private legal services. Therefore, they have to go to their Members of Parliament, they have to seek advice from those who are not qualified to give advice, or they simply cannot obtain justice.
    I hold no brief for solicitors. I have yet to meet a solicitor who is on the dole or who is starving because he or she cannot make a living. I know many solicitors and barristers who do very well out of the legal aid system and I know many more who do very well out of our private legal system. However, if solicitors are not being properly remunerated for their legal aid work—a survey conducted by the Law Society shows that many solicitors are either giving up legal aid work or are about to give it up because they are not properly remunerated—it means that people are going without proper legal advice, and that is a problem.
    In a city such as Leicester different forms of agencies provide legal advice and assistance, and thriving and flourishing private firms of solicitors are essential for

    1227
    providing that network of legal services. We have two law centres in Leicester—one of which has been in crisis over the past two years, although I hope that at 8 o'clock this evening it will form itself again into a properly functioning law centre. We also have a citizens advice bureau which gives advice and assistance, and we have a private sector. Each of those arms of the network of legal service is essential for my constituents to get proper advice and assistance.
    I conducted my own survey of local solicitors firms when I served on the Committee on the Legal Aid Act 1988, sitting opposite the Solicitor-General. I asked them whether they were satisfied with the present administration of the legal aid system, and not a single one replied that it was satisfied. They all felt that they would have to choose between continuing in that work and providing advice and assistance, and doing company and commercial work and conveyancing.
    I cannot understand why, having accepted that there are special cases of people who should get assistance under the green form schemes for wills and conveyancing the Solicitor-General does not go that little bit further and allow all the other cases to be admitted. It is essential that if someone is 69, and therefore does not qualify for the exemptions set out by the Solicitor-General, he or she should be able to obtain proper advice on how to prepare his or her will. I support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood and others about the duty solicitors scheme. It is essential that those who go to the county court—tenants facing possible evictions or possession orders from local authorities and others—should be able to obtain proper advice, assistance and representation.
    There is no evidence that the system is being abused by solicitors. We need a network of legal services throughout the country. I should prefer it if legal aid was not operated on the basis of a business, but as it is in America, which has a public defender scheme in which solicitors are paid a fixed salary through a network of law centres. I accept that, under this Government, who have cut the amount of resources available, we shall not obtain a system of that kind.
    I support what the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said about the need to extend legal aid. So much could have been achieved by the draft regulations. The Solicitor-General could have presented proposals for the extension of legal aid to industrial tribunals, to provide proper assistance for people. Under the Employment Bill currently going through the House, people will be required to put down deposits to guarantee their case before they can go before industrial tribunals. These proposals are further attempts to prevent people from exercising their rights.
    When the Legal Aid Act was in Committee, I asked the Solicitor-General whether he felt that justice was cost-effective. He told me—this seemed strange coming from a lawyer, and Solicitor-General—that it should be. That is where we part company. Resources should be made available for people to exercise their rights and obtain proper justice. The Solicitor-General should not kow-tow to the views of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and cut funds which are necessary for people to obtain justice and proper legal services.
    1.2 am
    Mr. Terry Davis: I shall join my hon. Friends in voting against these regulations for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and my other hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. I shall do so particularly because of the Government's failure to extend legal aid to representation at tribunals, which leaves a serious gap in legal aid provision. In Birmingham, that gap is to some extent filled by the establishment of a number of organizations—notably the Birmingham tribunal unit and the legal unit of the citizens advice bureau. However. this means that the gap is being filled by bodies which are financed largely by city council grants, so Birmingham's ratepayers are paying for people to be legally represented who would not otherwise be represented. Tribunals may deal with matters which are extremely important for the individuals involved.
    The Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred to industrial tribunals, but there are other extremely important tribunals which deal with social security legislation and people's rights to tenancies, mobility allowance and income support. In the past, there have been applications for single payments and appeals when they were refused. In that range of social security benefits it is extremely important that claimants should have the opportunity to be represented by people who are more articulate, skilled and experienced in those complicated regulations.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House and particularly of the Solicitor-General to another omission from the regulations. In recent months, a number of constituents have complained to me about having their legal aid certificates discharged against their will These people do not consider that they have exhausted the procedure for taking legal proceedings against doctors or neighbours. Such matters can be extremely important in peoples' lives. A constituent of mine, with my assistance, went to appeal against a discharge of her legal aid certificate in a complicated case involving alleged negligence by doctors. After my representations to legal aid head office, a second hearing was arranged because it was agreed that the original hearing of her appeal had not been satisfactorily considered and the procedures had not been followed in such a way as to satisfy the regulations.
    I was disturbed to learn that a person who goes to the area committee to appeal against a discharge by the area director is not given the report known as the case note, which is prepared by the staff in the legal aid office. That is incredible. I know of no other example of a person going to court and not being shown the evidence against him —or the evidence of the other side in a civil action. To have to explain why one does not think one's legal aid certificate should be discharged without knowing the reasons for its discharge is extraordinary. I know of no tribunal that would consider a person's appeal against the refusal of a social security benefit without showing the person an explanatory statement. Many of my constituents have appealed against decisions on immigration, and they are always given an explanatory statement prepared by the entry clearance officer.
    It is not enough to provide. as the regulations do, for a person to be given the grounds for the discharge of a legal aid certificate. We are used to seeing two or three-line grounds for refusal of entry clearance or of a social

    1229
    security benefit. It is important to understand the reasons why the entry clearance officer, or the adjudication officer in the social security system, has come to his or her decision to refuse the person something. Yet the regulations do not provide for people to be given explanatory statements. I imagine that the Solicitor-General, like me, did not know that that was necessary before, but the principles of natural justice require that a person be given the reasons for a decision.
    My constituent who wished to appeal against the discharge of a legal aid certificate went to the area committee and explained why she thought that her legal aid certificate should be reinstated, but she was not given any information about the reasons for the decision by the legal aid staff—reasons which were given in writing to the area committee. She was expected to argue her case against reasons that she had not been told. That is amazing.
    That decision was not made by the legal aid area director, who sheltered behind a decision which she said had been made by the Legal Aid Committee in London —that people should not be given reasons for a decision to discharge a legal aid certificate. That is grossly unfair. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would consider it so. I hope that the Solicitor-General does, too, and that he will join me in making strong representations to the new Legal Aid Board which will replace the present Legal Aid Committee to ensure that this bad practice is changed immediately.
    1.8 am
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest—past, present, and probably future: I have been both barrister and solicitor.
    I read the regulations with growing horror. I ran a large practice in the north of England—it included a large legal aid element—and experience has taught me that profitability in legal aid has slowly decreased over the years. That presents a real danger. Not only are the numbers of people who are eligible for legal aid falling, but the incentive to solicitors' firms to undertake legal aid work has decreased.
    It is all very well for hon. Members to say that there are no poor solicitors. A solicitor practising in a rural area is already under threat from the reform of the conveyancing rules. At the same time, according to Law Society surveys, legal aid work is clearly unremunerative. Therefore, the solicitor has two choices: either to forsake work or to move to a large city or a company in that city. That means that practices are moving from the rural and semi-suburban areas whether or not they depend on legal aid work. The right to representation is denied to people in those areas.
    When we introduced the legal aid system years ago I thought that the objective was to increase people's rights to representation in the courts. Over the past 20 years I have seen that the law is slowly concentrating in the hands of those who can afford to pay for it. As was said earlier, a company is represented at an industrial tribunal with all its might, ammunition and armaments. The applicant may sometimes be assisted by his trade union official, but very often he is on his own. What price justice?
    The Law Society recently produced a document which shows that the representation in county courts for the
    1230
    unassisted plaintiff provided by solicitors on a voluntary basis, is diminishing. The amount of remuneration available makes that representation uneconomical. Legal aid is being withdrawn in that area.
    In the county courts and before registrars, the unrepresented defendant, very often the plaintiff in person, appears without the necessary skills—[Interruption.] I hope that the Government Whip who has just entered the Chamber will concentrate on this debate rather than on his social life. Manners are precious, even in this place.
    Justice is being denied. The plaintiff in the circumstances that I have just described does not know all the rules or regulations. He does not know when the affidavit must be filed and he is unaware of the procedural minefield through which most plaintiffs must proceed if they wish to succeed. Very often in possession cases a plaintiff will face the might and main of a major company landlord who will be armed with counsel, solicitor and all the good advice that they can give.
    Matters are currently striking at the very heart of our system of justice in respect of the criminal law. The first of these is the serious matter of the provision of expert witnesses at Crown court trials. I am aware of occasions when I and my colleagues at the Bar have advised that expert evidence is required. You have no idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the difficulty in obtaining permission to call expert witnesses on behalf of the defence. Those witnesses may be able to give evidence on handwriting or fingerprints or they may be engineering witnesses in car-ringing cases. However, the defence is told that those witnesses are not allowed. Justice is not being served when that happens. We do not advise that experts are necessary in those cases if they are not, because counsel who so advise run the professional risk of being criticised. No one would undertake that risk lightly. However, legal aid authorities are reluctant to allow such witnesses and the usual excuse is the cost involved.
    Justice is again put at risk by the meanness or the cash limits being applied to legal aid work. It is easy for lawyers to plead their own cause. We are often the subject of fun and the butt of humour because we appear to be asking for more, like Oliver Twist. However, the issues that I raise tonight have nothing to do with the remuneration of lawyers, because there will always be lawyers who are prepared to do legal aid work. Lawyers have a sense of morality and a commitment to justice.
    The point I make is that because of the meanness of the legal aid authority and the denial of assistance to the plaintiff or to the person in the dock, his or her case or cause—and sometimes his or her liberty—is put at risk. That is because somewhere there is a bureaucrat who does not understand the system but who is the arbitrary judge of whether expert advice or help should be made available to the person whose liberty may be at risk.
    The regulations do nothing to serve justice. They will probably diminish the number of lawyers who are prepared to undertake legal aid work. They will probably make justice less accessible to many people. The Solicitor-General need not reply to me tonight, but perhaps he will at some stage explain what tables 1 and 2 on page 20 of the regulations mean. I suspect that they constitute another attempt to cut the income of those preparing to serve justice by undertaking legal aid work.
    1.15 am
    The Solicitor-General: I shall endeavour to answer briefly the questions raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and by other hon. Members. The first question of the hon. Member for Norwood concerned eligibility, which quickly became linked with other points on remuneration. As those hon. Members who participated in debates on the Legal Aid Bill will recall, it is extremely difficult accurately to answer what proportion of the population—let alone of households—is eligible for legal aid. It depends very much on the circumstances of the individual household. It may not be eligible as a whole, but if the family breaks up, one of the spouses may become so.
    Legal aid is reaching more people than ever before. Since 1979–80, the number of criminal legal aid orders granted has increased by 40 per cent. to nearly 600,000. Over the same 10-year period, the number of bills paid for those receiving advice and assistance under the green form scheme has increased also by about 40 per cent. and now stands at more than 1 million. The number of new legal aid certificates issued has increased by about 30 per cent. to 250,000. In addition, assistance by way of representation —ABWOR—was introduced and has been provided in about 60,000 cases.
    The Government have also made provision for duty solicitor schemes at magistrates courts and for advice and assistance at police stations. In the 10 years since 1979, overall expenditure on legal aid has increased from about £100 million in 1979–80 to nearly £550 million in 1989–90, which is an increase way ahead of inflation. Of course it relates to many more people receiving legal aid, but that is what legal aid is about.
    As to remuneration, there have been detailed discussions between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Society. Mention has been made in the debate of the Touche Ross report, which was well designed to inform debate on what levels of remuneration ought to be. It is true that, according to the tests applied, legal aid remuneration does not appear to be profitable in the case of a small firm undertaking a low volume of such work.
    The difficulty is that, at present, the same levels of remuneration are payable regardless of whether a practice undertakes one or two cases over a lengthy period, or a large number of cases, week in and week out. However, the figures—which have been the subject of much discussion between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Society—show that, provided a practice undertakes a substantial volume of legal aid work, it can be very profitable. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) will understand that very well.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General accept that the cost of running a solicitors' practice is between £40 and £60 an hour in an urban area and probably between £30 and £40 an hour in a rural area? I may be going back a few years as I have not checked recently. If the Solicitor-General would only look at the legal aid rates, he would see that the amount paid per hour is less than the cost of running a practice, so it cannot be profitable.
    The Solicitor-General: I did not intend to incense the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to draw it to the attention of the House that, if a firm does a substantial amount of legal aid work, it can be very profitable. The problem is not that the figures are wrong, but to find a fair way to deal with small firms in rural areas, just as one looks for a fair way to deal
    1232
    with medical practitioners with scattered rural practices. The Lord Chancellor's Department intends to study the matter carefully. However, the Touche Ross report demonstrates that legal aid can be substantially profitable if a firm does sufficient work.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and other hon. Members called for legal aid for tribunals. The position is not static and we discussed the matter in relation to the Legal Aid Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will remember that research is in course, particularly into legal aid for industrial tribunals, social security appeal tribunals, immigration adjudicators and mental health review tribunals. That research team will report shortly.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Solicitor-General give way on that point?
    The Solicitor-General: No. I must press on, as I have to deal with a number of points.
    Green form assistance is already available. The hon. Member for Hodge Hill raised a particular case in which there appeared to be some lack of natural justice in an appeal to an area committee. The general reasons why legal aid has been refused are given, although individual committees may have different practices; if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall look into the case he raised.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised another detailed case. If he sends me further details, I shall look into the case and do my best to answer him.
    An apology may be owed to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), as the regulations have had to be brought before the House in some hurry. He recognised that we had to bring the measures forward because some citizens might lose because the regulations must be in effect by 1 April. To put the matter into some perspective, I am told that the instruments were laid on 8 March and drafts of them were supplied in advance to the officials of his Committee in January. If there is fault on our part, I shall look into it, and if an apology is owed I give it now. We certainly do not wish to be disrespectful to his Committee, but I hope that the points that I have made and our attempts to do things in advance have at least eased the position.
    I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. We are dealing with a serious matter. I emphasise the very large increase in the provision of legal aid. The object of legal aid is to provide those who cannot afford it with sufficient means to litigate when litigation is necessary for circumstances beyond their control or where they should reasonably have support. The objective of the regulations is to put the Legal Aid Act into effect, and I commend them to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 32.

    Division No. 134]

    [1.24 am

    AYES

    Amess, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Amos, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bright, Graham

    Ashby, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carrington, Matthew

    Bellingham, Henry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    1233

    Couchman, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Cran, James

    Lang, Ian

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lightbown, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maclean, David

    Dover, Den

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Durant, Tony

    Neubert, Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Favell, Tony

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Norris, Steve

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Paice, James

    Forth, Eric

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Raffan, Keith

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Ryder, Richard

    Gregory, Conal

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Ground, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Hague, William

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Harris, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hayward, Robert

    Thorne, Neil

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Hind, Kenneth

    Twinn, Dr Ian

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

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wood, Timothy

    Irvine, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Janman, Tim

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

    Jessel, Toby

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

    Battle, John

    Foster, Derek

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fraser, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cryer, Bob

    Gordon, Mildred

    Cummings, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    1234

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Vaz, Keith

    Livsey, Richard

    Wall, Pat

    Nellist, Dave

    Walley, Joan

    Pike. Peter L.

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    Resolved,
    That the draft Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 267), dated 27th February 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

    COAL INDUSTRY
    That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    Question agreed to.

    Water Rates (Grampian Region)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    1.35 am
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the issue of metered water rates. I shall refer specifically to Grampian region, although it is an issue throughout Scotland. Before I ask the Minister a number of questions, I should like to put the problem into perspective.
    Grampian regional council has always had a very positive attitude towards business and industry. The present Social and Liberal Democrat-led administration has continued to develop what I freely acknowledge to be the previous Conservative administration's pro-business attitude. It has adopted a positive approach to promoting the attractive business environment and enterprising character of the north east of Scotland through its small business enterprise scheme, which dispenses more than £1 million per year in grants and loans. The Grampian Initiative, chaired by Councillor Nicol Stephen has continued this promotional stance with all-party support. Non-domestic rates for Grampian remain the lowest in Scotland. The general climate is positive and pro-business and the council is anxious to ensure that opportunities are encouraged and that businesses flourish in the area.
    The rapid expansion of the oil industry in Grampian during the 1970s led to the progressive withdrawal of assisted area status, and traditional industries faced rising local costs as a result of pressure while capital assistance was being removed. In the circumstances, the council was forced to invest in substantial new schemes to provide for the extra demands for water services. The Minister may recall that a proposal to create a large stored water catchment area in the Cabrach in the 1960s was resisted by local landowners. It is a matter of continuing regret that that did not go ahead.
    Water in Grampian continues to be drawn from the region's rivers and a high proportion of capital charges are of recent origin, with a consequently high debt service charge—£9·89 million for 1989–90. The region also faces costs well above average for electricity for pumping water out of the rivers in the absence of adequate storage facilities. The council took full advantage of the provision under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to provide extra support for the 7,000 metered water users out of the general rate. That legislation was of particular help to the region, given the background that I have described.
    The very positive support allowed under the 1980 Act is irreversibly compromised, however, by the requirement of schedule 5, paragraph 4 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, which effectively removes the option. The Act says:
    "A local authority may apportion their estimated expenditure under paragraph 2 above on whatever basis they consider appropriate, but"—
    and this is a very big but—
    "they shall ensure that the apportionment is not such as to show undue preference to, or discriminate unduly against, any class or classes of person liable to pay—

    (a) the direct charges;

    (b) the community water charges; or

    (c) the non-domestic water rate, respectively."

    Properly, and quite understandably, Grampian region-al council consulted its legal advisers and COSLA to
    1236
    determine the range of discretion open to it in the light of that change in the law. The council had to ensure that the region's water costs—estimated at £20,062,000 for 1989–90 —were fully covered by water charges and fairly allocated among the three classes of user. Total consumption is estimated at 58,807,000 cu m. Some 51 per cent. of that is domestic, 40·7 per cent. is metered and 8·3 per cent. is for other non-domestic users.
    COSLA's proposals for how the allocation should be applied were based, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, on a technical appraisal of the application of the law and can in no way be interpreted as a political comment. The Scottish Development Department was represented on the working party so presumably it accepted the objective nature of the formula that COSLA worked out. The council did not apply the formula without modification for local circumstances. It did not slavishly follow COSLA's guidelines. It was agreed, for example, that only 80 per cent. of leakages should be allocated across all classes of water, because it was known that 20 per cent. of leaks come from consumers' private pipework. That had a mitigating effect on the metered water charge, but was nevertheless a small proportion of the total amount.
    The council concluded that the law
    "very severely restricts the Council's ability to assist metered consumers to any material extent."
    The council maintains that lop of the total increase of 22·5p per cubic metre—an increase from 20·5p to 43p—results directly from the abolition of the public water rate, and 10p from the abolition of the provision in the 1980 Act allowing for cross-subsidy from the domestic rate. That leaves only 2·5p to be attributed to the rising cost of providing water, so it is a marginal percentage. In other words, the overwhelming majority of the increase is outside the council's discretion. If it showed more than due preference to any class of user, it could face legal action from other classes of user who felt that they had been discriminated against.
    I am sure that the Minister recognises from the representations that he has received from me and from others that the increase has caused widespread concern among metered water users who are facing dramatic and abrupt cost increases. The increases range from several hundred pounds at the bottom—that is still a significant amount because we are talking about small farms and businesses, for which that kind of increase in cost is still significant—to more than £100,000 for the largest users. That is a substantial extra cost to absorb on the bottom line.
    The situation is especially unfortunate for the food industry, which is of established and growing importance for Grampian. The region is renowned for its quality products from land and sea, and adding value to these is of major importance to the future direction of the local economy. That is why the region is actively promoting food parks at Inverurie in my constituency and also in Forres in Moray. Such substantial increases in water charges as in the council's judgment are required by law are neither helpful nor in any way what the region wishes to impose. Barry Evans of Buchan Meat is chairman of the Grampian Initiative food task force which is spending £75,000 marketing the region's food processing potential. Mr. Evans has expressed considerable concern at the impact of the increases on promotional activities.

    1237
    On the basis of my meetings with the Minister and our exchange of letters, I must say that if the Minister believes that there is scope within the law for a substantially different apportionment of charges between metered water users and others than the legal advisers to Grampian and COSLA believe, it seems only reasonable that his officials should at least agree to have a private meeting with Grampian officials to discuss the interpretation. That view is strongly pressed by councillors and users.
    Although the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not present, he supports my request to the Minister to encourage such a meeting to take place. There is a fundamental difference of view between his interpretation and that of his legal advisers and that of the legal advisers to the council. It does not help to make political statements when the issue at stake is the legal advice given to respective bodies.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I are organising a meeting of the many affected businesses in our constituencies at the end of the month in Portsoy. We have sent an invitation for the Minister or one of his colleagues to come to the meeting to explain the Scottish Office case. Would it not be extraordinarily disappointing if, having already refused a meeting with Grampian regional council, representatives of the Scottish Office also refused to attend that meeting?
    Mr. Bruce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not acceptable for the Minister to refuse to meet the council officials and representatives or the users at either a public meeting at Portsoy or at a private meeting. It is essential that the matter is cleared up at a meeting, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman and his colleague are anxious to learn what is happening from a Government representative.
    The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 is the source of the change and I believe that the Minister steered it through the House. Therefore, he knows the intentions behind that Act and the expected outturn. The impact is not exclusively confined to Grampian, but it is the area worst effected. That observation is borne out by the fact that metered water rates throughout Scotland have increased sharply, Grampian's increase of 110 per cent. is the largest because, ironically, it has done much to help water users in the past and, for physical reasons, it has the highest water costs in Scotland.
    Increases elsewhere include 72 per cent. in Highland, 69 per cent. in Strathclyde, 64 per cent. in Dumfries and Galloway and 53 per cent. in Lothian. Even the lowest increases of 18 per cent. in Fife, 24 per cent. in Central and 27 per cent. in Borders are well above inflation. Those increases are mostly due to the fact that those councils had not taken full account of the previous legislation.
    The impact is so serious that the Government should be prepared to provide some form of transitional funding, especially as the requirement is that the apportionment of sewerage charges should follow suit—over a longer period —and charges for that and water may also be subjected to VAT.
    1238
    The Minister has said that he has no power to intervene, but I question that. He could make allocation under revenue support grant orders to provide transitional funding. I remind the Minister that the Government found time for primary legislation to provide for transitional funding to compensate people for the effects of rating revaluation and this is an exact parallel. It is causing considerable hardship and affecting people who would support the Government.
    Time could quickly and easily be made in the parliamentary programme. I am sure that the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) would agree that there is one Bill which we could do without. If that Bill went we would have the legislative space and time needed to deal with this problem.
    The crunch question is why the change in the law was introduced. Apparently the main objective is to put water charges on a separate footing from other local authority accounts. Inevitably that appears as the first step towards the privatisation of Scotland's water services. The fact that the Government inserted a major new Scottish section into the Water Bill yesterday reinforces the case to suggest that paving measures for privatisation are being effected.
    The increases are only the beginning. Once privatisa-tion gathers momentum, all water users will face sustained and rising costs and, of course, all water supplies will eventually be metered.
    The Minister's refusal so far to meet Grampian regional council or representatives of the 7,000 metered water users shows that the Government are unwilling to admit responsibility for their own laws. Grampian regional council's legal advice is that it had no choice but to impose the increases so as to conform with the law. The council has demonstrated, as my speech has shown, that it is pro-business, has always supported business, is anxious to promote the food industry and would like help it to adjust to the change that has been imposed.
    If the Minister believes that his Department has a judgment different from Grampian region about what can be done, the least I ask him to do is to agree to a meeting —even a private meeting—at which officials can get together to discuss the matter so tht if we cannot reduce the charges this year, we can ensure that reductions are possible in the following years. Otherwise the Minister will be putting businesses and jobs unnecessarily at risk. I challenge him to explain how the bulk of the increase is not due to the law introduced by the Government.
    1.51 am
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has afforded the House a useful opportunity to debate the new arrangements for water rates, especially metered water rates, in Grampian region.
    At present, under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, water supplied to the non-domestic sector is paid for in three ways. First non-domestic consumers with an unmetered supply pay the domestic water rate levied on a proportion, usually one half, of the net annual value of the premises concerned. Secondly, metered water users pay a charge according to the volume of water consumed. Thirdly, in addition, in Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Grampian, Highland and Strathclyde regional councils and Orkney and Western Isles island councils, all ratepayers, domestic

    1239
    and non-domestic, pay, through their regional or general rate, a public water rate which can meet up to one third of the net expenditure on water supply. Water consumed in the domestic sector is paid for by the domestic water rate and, in those councils where it is applicable, by the public water rate.
    The existing system had to change. People did not know how much it cost to provide their water supply, authorities could charge part of the cost to the general account and there were no provisions in the legislation that required the charges to be fair at all. It is right that everyone should know the true cost of services they receive or commodities they use. Water is a valuable resource and while it may be delivered from the heavens free, it has to be collected, stored, treated and distributed to individual properties. In many places it has to be pumped as well, and this is particularly true of Grampian region.
    Mr. Bruce: In the light of what the Minister just said, may I ask him to explain why the Government introduced the 1980 Act, which did exactly the opposite and allowed cross-subsidisation from the general rate? What happened in those eight years that made the Government decide that they wanted to change the system?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to stray down avenues which would prevent me from replying to his concerns about metered water charges. I have given him the reason why we believe that a change is now desirable.
    Under the present system, water is paid for on the basis of rateable value, quantity used or a combination of both. The new arrangements for paying for water are contained in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the provisions in the Act have been known since 1986. Specifically, the Act requires that in apportioning costs between community water charges, non-domestic water rates and metered charges, water authorities shall not show undue preference to, or discriminate unduly against, any class of consumer. It also abolishes the public water rate.
    The Act does not specify how each authority should make its even-handed apportionment of costs. That is up to them, but almost all have chosen to distribute the costs in proportion to the volume used by each class of consumer. For the first time, authorities had to establish how much of their expenditure should be allocated to each sector. Their apportionments have shown that metered consumers had in the past not borne their full share of the cost of supply. A significant adjustment in metered rates was called for in order not to discriminate against other classes of consumer.
    However, the increase in metered rates does not present the whole picture. Offsetting savings from the abolition of the public water rate reduce the impact significantly. Those with high rateable values and low consumptions will pay less than before. For example, in Grampian a business with a rateable value of £10,000 could use up to 500 cu m of water per year and still pay less under the new arrangements. A company with a rateable value of £1 million could use up to 50,000 cu m and still be better off.
    Within the fairness provisions, there is, however, scope for authorities to exercise some discretion without making any undue discrimination. In fact, many authorities have made adjustments to the basic volume apportionments to reduce the impact on metered consumers. Grampian, in
    1240
    fact, has modified the straight "volume used" criteria recommended by COSLA and has reduced its metered water charge by 2½p below what it would otherwise have been.
    There is also provision in the Act to allow different meter rates to be set for different circumstances. This could mean lower rates for bulk users, but equally I have to say that there can be arguments for higher unit charges with increased consumption—to encourage conservation of water or the postponement of major capital investment in new reservoirs. Variable metered rates are not, however, normal practice in the water industry and no council has chosen this course of action.
    The total cost of water in Grampian next year is rising by only 6·5 per cent.—less than the rate of inflation—and the new arrangements will do nothing to increase that cost. But although the total operating cost of supplying water will not be increased by the new arrangements, the cost to each class of consumer has varied. Metered water charges have risen generally throughout Scotland and now range from 21 p per cubic metre in Central region to 43p per cubic metre in Grampian region, as the hon. Gentleman said. The increases themselves will be from 18 per cent. in Fife to 109 per cent. in Grampian.
    We have heard tonight, and in the media over recent weeks, the effect that the increases in metered charges will have on Grampian region. Let us look at the reasons for these increases. First, domestic water ratepayers have in the past subsidised the metered water rate by nearly one third. Secondly, the abolition of the public water rate, which was based on rateable values and could meet up to one third of the net cost, has resulted in that largely hidden element being incorporated in the new charges. Thirdly, the water supply system in Grampian is based almost entirely on river abstraction, a situation unique in Scotland but more familiar in England and Wales. This results in higher operating costs from pumping. Finally, the high level of capital expenditure, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in recent years to service oil-related developments has incurred substantial loan charges, making the running costs for the region very high compared with the rest of Scotland. All these factors have combined to make the metered water rate of 43p per cubic metre the highest in Scotland.
    I do not seek to underrate the impact that this year's increase, decided upon by Grampian regional council, will have on high users paying metered charges. However, industry should also bear in mind that the non-domestic rate poundage in Grampian is among the lowest in the country.
    The legislation to give effect to the new arrangements was enacted by Parliament in 1987. Grampian regional council, if it had wished, could have prepared for the new charges by reducing the contribution from the public water rate in 1988–89. However, first warning of the new charges was given by the regional council in a statement issued in November 1988, and at a subsequent meeting with non-domestic ratepayers in December, guide figures were issued. Final figures were made known towards the end of January. There is little doubt that industries which use large amounts of water in Grampian and elsewhere will pay more under the new arrangements. However, there will be offsetting reductions to most consumers from the abolition of the public water rate in Grampian and elsewhere in Scotland.

    1241
    We must remember that the baseline for calculating the business rate was reduced by 1·4p in Grampian to take account of the public water element. I can tell the House that many businesses, offices and shops will pay less for their water next year; in the case of large offices and shops in Aberdeen, the reduction could be over 80 per cent. For example, a major high street retail store in Aberdeen will actually save 87 per cent. on its water charges, despite the substantial increase in the metered rate.
    Agricultural premises do not pay rates, except on the dwelling houses. They will therefore obtain minimal benefits from the abolition of the public water rate, in Grampian or elsewhere, and will have to pay the new metered charges. However, most farms have a metered supply, and those adults living in farm houses or cottages sharing that supply will not have to pay a personal community charge. In Grampian, this offsetting saving will amount this year to £30 per adult receiving water from the farm's metered supply, which would in many cases include agricultural workers and their wives living in the farm cottages. For the farms themselves, there may be opportunities to conserve water, and I have no doubt that it will be possible to eliminate unnecessary waste.
    The hon. Gentleman has suggested phasing in the new arrangements, as was done in England and Wales when the Water Bill 1973 introduced fairness provisions for the first time. But at that time the basis of charging was not changed. We, however, had to introduce a completely new charge—the community water charge—and, as I have already explained, had to lay down the framework within which authorities have to decide how much of their expenditure should be apportioned to each class. Fairness provisions were therefore needed at the outset.
    The hon. Gentleman and others have complained about high metered rates. I make no apology for prohibiting authorities from showing undue discrimin-ation for or against any class of consumer in making their
    1242
    apportionment. That is only fair. Had the fairness provisions not been incorporated in the legislation, community water charges could have risen to subsidise the metered water charges in one area, and the reverse in others. It is only right that all sectors should pay their fair share.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about a meeting with Grampian regional council. Because the law gives Ministers no discretion over these matters, very little would be achieved by a meeting. However, I am sure that officials of Grampian regional council will have explored all their anxieties with my officials in the Scottish Office, and if such exploration were to indicate that a meeting between officials would be useful, of course one could take place.
    The average metered charge for water in Scotland will be just over 28p per cubic metre. This is to be compared with the average equated meter charge in England and Wales, which is likely to be around 40p per cubic metre for 1989–90. In Europe, metered rates for 1988 were generally higher, with Germany at 67p per cubic metre, Belgium 53p and France 44p, and can be expected to be even higher in 1989–90.
    Water in Scotland is still a good buy. Scotland remains an attractive location for companies seeking a European base, and the increase in metered water charges should not have a significant effect on the ability to attract new industries.
    Industry is constantly pressing us to introduce a level playing field for business rates, and we are working towards this along a number of avenues. Change in the water charging arrangements is one.
    It is only right that people should pay for what they use, and get what they pay for. I believe that there is a general acceptance among those who have commented on the changes that the move towards transparency of costs and fair allocation among users is not only just but long overdue.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Scotland (Taxation)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his best estimate on the most recent information available as to the annual amount of direct and indirect taxation raised in Scotland; and what is the annual total of central Government and local government expenditure there for a similar period.

  Mr. Major
  For the latest information on identifiable Scottish public expenditure I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on 25 October 1988 at columns 120–29.The latest available information on income tax in Scotland for 1986–87 amounts to £3,250 million. In the same year national insurance contributions are estimated to have amounted to £2,121 million, and local authority rates (excluding water rates) paid in Scotland totalled £1,653 million. Figures for remaining major elements of direct taxation and for indirect taxation are not collected on a regional basis.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man with two children on half average male earnings from 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on half average earnings is 23 per cent. higher in 1988–89 than in 1978–79.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the personal allowance for a married man would be if it had been increased in line with earnings in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the personal allowance for a married man would be now if increased in line with earnings in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  If personal allowances had been increased in line with the growth in male average earnings since 1978–79, the married man's allowance would be £4,525 in 1989–90.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will visit the Nottingham, North constituency to explain the consequences of his Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the Nottingham, North constituency.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the community charge is to be liable to value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The community charge will not be subject to value added tax.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those areas of public employment for which there is no funded pension scheme; if he will tabulate the liabilities of current funding by category, type, Ministry and any other appropriate description; and if he will list those industries that have been privatised whose employees now have a funded pension scheme.

  Mr. Brooke
  The majority of public service schemes —Civil Service, armed forces, judiciary, fire, police—are unfunded and financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, although two—the National Health Service and the teachers—are "notionally funded" (that is, in his periodic valuations the Government Actuary creates a notional fund, and calculates whether this is in balance, in surplus, or in deficit). Only the local government superannuation scheme and the parliamentary pension scheme are fully funded, although a number of small non-departmental public bodies (for example, Medical Research Council) also have funded schemes.

  The local government superannuation scheme in England and Wales comprises 88 separate funds which are valued by an actuary every five years (three years from 1 April this year). Copies of these valuation reports, which contain estimates of the liabilities, are sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The information is not collated centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. In the case of the parliamentary scheme, the liabilities are set out in the Government Actuary's report (House of Commons paper No.13) based on a valuation at 1 April 1984 and laid before the House in 1986.

  Private pension scheme arrangements are a matter for the individual company. However, the principal privatised industries—British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways —had funded schemes before privatisation as well as after.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Interest rates are set at an appropriate level to maintain downward pressure on inflation.

  Invisible Trade Balance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact payments to the EEC had on the invisible trade balance in(a) December 1988 and (b) 1988 as a whole.

  Mr. Moore
  Invisible trade figures are collected only on a quarterly basis. In the fourth quarter of 1988 the invisible trade balance showed a surplus of £821 million after unusually high net payments to the EEC of £840 million. For 1988 as a whole, net payments to the EEC were £1,442 million and invisible trade recorded a surplus of £5,892 million.

  Unitary Tax
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to implement section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and if he will make a statement on unitary tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Some two years ago Her Majesty's Government announced that they were prepared to defer initiating action under what is now section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (previously section 54 of the Finance Act 1985) in recognition of the progress that had been made towards resolving the unitary tax issue. The Government further made it clear that if it became necessary to take action after 31 December 1988, it would not apply to dividends paid on or before that date.

  The Government believe that progress has been made in the last two years but that problems remain, in particular the election fee which companies have to pay in order not to be subject to worldwide unitary tax. It proposes to review the situation jointly with the United States Treasury later this year. If it became necessary to take action on or after 31 December 1989 this would not apply to dividends paid on or before that date.

  Crown Premises
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contributions will be made in lieu of community charges in respect of Crown premises or persons resident in them.

  Mr. Major
  There are two circumstances in which contributions will be made in lieu of community charges in respect of Crown premises or persons resident in them.

  First, persons who are resident in Crown property which is designated by the Secretary of State will be exempt from the personal community charge and, in Scotland, the personal community water charge. A contribution in lieu of those charges will be made to the local authority by the relevant Government Department or Crown body, which will recover those charges from the residents concerned.

  Second, any contribution in lieu of the standard community charge and, in Scotland, the standard community water charge which would otherwise be payable in respect of premises which are occupied by a Government Department or other Crown body will be made to the local authority by the Government Department or Crown body occupying those premises.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published.

  Mr. Major
  The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 13 April.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of the average private medical insurance policy with comprehensive cover for(a) a pensioner aged over 60 years, (b) a pensioner aged over 70 years and (c) a pensioner aged over 80 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: Information broken down in this way is not available.
  588
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make available the estimates used in his calculation of £40 million tax relief for 1989–90 for the private medical insurance premium for the average pensioner;

  (2) what is his estimate of the average premium paid for private medical insurance by those aged over 60 years who currently hold private medical insurance policies;

  (3) what is his estimate of the proportion of the £40 million set aside for tax relief for private medical insurance that will go to top-rate taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: Tax relief on private medical insurance for the over-60s will not be available until 1990–91, when about 330,000 tax units (single people and married couples) aged 60 or above are expected to qualify for tax relief on medical insurance. The average subscription per tax unit is estimated to be about £400. Around one half of the cost of relief is expected to be received by higher-rate taxpayers.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of private medical insurance tax relief if(a) 1 million (b) 1·2 million (c) 1·5 million and (d) 2 million qualify for tax relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: The cost of relief at the various levels of take-up specified would depend on the type of policies taken out and the marginal tax rate of the payers of the premiums. These would be likely to vary with the level of take-up.

  Schedule E
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of taxpayers who will be affected by his proposals to simplify the assessment of earnings under schedule E; and what proportion are on a marginal rate of 40 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: It is estimated that around half a million taxpayers—mainly directors—will be affected by these proposals and that about 40 per cent. will be higher-rate taxpayers.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the transitional arrangements will be applied to those making a new investment in personal equity plans before 5 April.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: The transitional arrangements for PEPs are contained in the personal equity plan regulations 1989 laid before Parliament on 14 March. Plan managers will be able, if they wish, to operate on the basis of the improved provisions announced in the Budget from 6 April 1989, but where plan managers are unable to adapt their systems to apply the improvements by that time, they have until 31 December 1989 to do so. The new requirement that investment and unit trusts must have 75 per cent. of their investments in United Kingdom equities does not apply until 6 April 1990.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1984–85 the cost of Central Office of Information services recovered from each client Department.
  589
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Information on departmental publicity expenditure incurred through the Central Office of Information is a matter for departmental Ministers and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of departmental expenditure on publicity for the financial years 1984–85 to 1988–89 were supplied by Ministers in response to questions from the hon. Member and published in the Official Report November-December 1986; July 1987; December 1987-January 1988; and March 1989.

  Taxi Buses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the taxi buses providing scheduled services in consequence of the recent initiatives on transport policy are exempted from value added tax on the same basis as large public service buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: The zero-rating of bus fares is limited to vehicles capable of carrying 12 or more passengers, that is, those which are used, in the main, to provide the bulk of mass public transport. The Government have no plans to extend zero-rating to smaller vehicles.

TRANSPORT

  Hazardous Substances (Road Transport)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute an immediate investigation into(a) the carriage of dangerous substances by road, (b) the numbers of heavy goods vehicles involved in accidents in 1988–89 and (c) the numbers of heavy goods vehicles carrying dangerous loads that were involved in accidents over the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The regulations governing the carriage of these goods by road are regularly reviewed and updated. The figure for accidents in 1988 involving HGVs is not yet available. In 1987 it was 15,107. This is some 18 per cent. lower than 10 years ago.

  There were 101 accidents involving vehicles carrying these goods reported to HSE in 1986–87. This was the first year separate records were kept. The comparable figure for 1987–88 was 68.

  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the local authorities that have been appointed to design trunk road schemes valued in excess of £1 million and (b) where competition has been invited for the design of such schemes the local authorities which have been invited to submit competitive bids.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since fee competition between consultants was introduced in January 1985, the local authorities listed in the Table have been appointed to design trunk road construction and improvement schemes estimated to cost over £1 million.590

  Local authority

  Number of schemes

  1. Bedfordshire CC

  1

  2. Cambridgeshire CC

  3

  3. Cheshire CC

  1

  4. Cornwall CC

  3

  5. Cumbria CC

  3

  6. Devon CC

  1

  7. Dorset CC

  2

  8. Durham CC

  1

  9. Gloucestershire CC

  1

  10. Hampshire CC

  1

  11. Hertfordshire CC

  1

  12. Humberside CC

  1

  13. Kent CC

  1

  14. Norfolk CC

  1

  15. Northamptonshire CC

  2

  16. Northumberland CC

  1

  17. North Yorkshire CC

  1

  18. Shropshire CC

  1

  19. Staffordshire CC

  2

  20. Suffolk CC

  2

  21. Warwickshire CC

  1

  22. West Sussex CC

  1

  23. Wiltshire CC

  2

  As already explained, local highway authorities are also appointed to design major maintenance schemes costing over £1 million in the areas where the trunk road network is managed by them. They do not bid for either type of work.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on whether the design of trunk road schemes valued in excess of £1 million should be carried out in the public or private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our policy is to allocate the design work for trunk road construction and improvement schemes estimated to cost over £1 million to private sector consultants, through competitive tendering. Exceptionally, such work may be awarded without recourse to competition, to the highway authority in whose area the scheme lies. This is where the authority has already carried out some of the design and allocation to a consultant would involve delay or extra costs; where the project is interlinked with an adjacent local highway authority scheme; or where there is a large amount of traffic management and control which would involve the authority in any event.

  The design of major maintenance schemes costing over £1 million is handled by the authority or consultant who is responsible for managing the maintenance of the part of the trunk road network in question. Most of the network is managed by local highway authorities.

  British Rail (Disciplinary Procedure)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the role of British Transport police in matters concerning British Rail's disciplinary procedure.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the British Transport police have no role in British Rail's disciplinary procedures unless it appears that a criminal offence may be involved.

  Nuclear Materials Carriage Flasks
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he received any request for a transport licence for nuclear materials carriage flasks that arrived on the Pacific Sandpiper in Barrow on 16 February.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Transport of all nuclear materials must be made in accordance with national and international regulations. The certificates required to comply with these regulations were issued by my Department for the shipment aboard the Pacific Sandpiper that arrived on 16 February.

  Dangerous Freight
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations has he received regarding the transport by road of dangerous freight; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many road accidents have taken place in each of the past five years in which at least one of the vehicles involved was carrying dangerous freight, what casualties were caused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received several letters from members of the public, either direct or forwarded by hon. Members. On accident figures, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 20 March at column 397.

  There were no fatalities, and three casualties caused by the goods being carried in the two years 1986–1988. While not complacent, I regard these figures as representing a good safety record.

  Springburn-Bellgrove Railway Crash
  Mr. Michael Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects to receive the results of the railway inspectorate's report on the Springburn to Bellgrove railway line crash; and if he will be making a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The inquiry into the Bellgrove accident is to be held on 19–21 April at the Merchants house of Glasgow, 7 West George street, Glasgow. The chief inspecting officer of railways will be presenting his report to me at the earliest opportunity. I cannot, at this time, give any indication when that will be.

  Coach Companies (Service)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to monitor the standards of service offered by National Express Bus Company and other national coach companies, and complaints thereon by customers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The services offered by National Express Bus Company and other coach operators are a matter for their commercial judgment. Any customer complaints can be dealt with by normal consumer protection legislation. Long-distance services were deregulated under the Transport Act 1980, but operators are still subject to the control of PSV operator licensing. PSV drivers are subject to driver licensing and driver hours legislation.

  Road Deaths
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, upon what information he based his recent statement that the three main causes of road deaths were drunken drivers, dangerous drivers and motor cyclists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A comma appeared in the press reports after the word 'drivers'. The point I was making was that the main cause of road deaths are drunk drivers, dangerous drivers and dangerous motor cyclists. We know from coroners' reports that alcohol is a key factor in about a third of road deaths.

  Accident causation studies show that human error, resulting in dangerous driving is a prime factor in 70 per cent of accidents and a factor in 95 per cent.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of all road deaths in the latest year for which figures are available involved(a) motor cycles, (b) dangerous drivers and (c) drunken drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  (a) In 1987 about 17 per cent. of road deaths, 870 out of 5,125, occurred in accidents that involved motor cyclists.

  (b) As cause of accident is not collected it is not possible to determine from the available data how many accidents involved dangerous driving.

  (c) During 1986, the latest year for which complete drink-drive figures are available, it is estimated that 950 out of the 5,382 road deaths, that is, nearly 18 per cent., occurred in accidents where at least one driver was over the legal alcohol limit. Some of these accidents also involved motor cycles and therefore will be included in the previous figure.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, 7 February,Official Report, column 613, he will make it his policy to publish the final version of the review report on the international transport of nuclear materials to coincide with its consideration at the standing advisory group of the International Atomic Energy Agency in April.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The review report is an internal International Atomic Energy Agency document. Publication is therefore a matter for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the national arrangements involving radioactivity scheme does not apply to emergency procedures involving the rail transport or road transport of spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Emergency procedures to deal specifically with incidents involving nuclear fuel flasks have been provided and are administered by the Central Electricity Generating Board in England and Wales and the South of Scotland electricity board in Scotland.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all rail accidents involving trains carrying spent nuclear fuel, by date and place; and if any radioactivity has been released from any flask or container involved in a rail accident since such transport began.
  593
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No incident involving a nuclear fuel flask in transit has led to a release of radioactivity since this traffic was started 30 years ago. From time to time there have been minor incidents, usually involving empty flasks. These are of no radiological significance. The Department does not keep statistics on them.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy at the European Council of Transport Ministers in Brussels on 14 March to propose a study of the safety of road, rail and air transport of plutonium, enriched uranium, tritium and spent nuclear fuel within and from the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No such study is needed. The transport of radioactive materials is required to comply with international standards laid down by United Nations bodies. The regulations are kept under continuous review.

  Research Reactor (Greenwich)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport regulations will cover the safety of the moving of the Royal Navy's research reactor at Greenwich royal naval college to Plymouth in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The movement of the Royal Navy research reactor will be made in full compliance with national and international transport regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials that apply at the time of the transfer.

  A list of the current regulations has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Rubbish Disposal at Sea
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, 16 March,Official Report, column 287, what reports he has now received from his marine surveyors concerning the adequacy of arrangements made on ships to ensure compliance with annex V of the Marpol convention prohibiting the disposal into the sea of plastic, synthetic rope and other rubbish.

  Mr. Portillo
  Garbage generated on board ship can be disposed of either into shore reception facilities or, in the case of non-plastics, can be retained on board for disposal at sea outside prescribed limits. Surveyors have not been asked to report on the arrangements on board ships. The essential point of their inspection is to remind those on board that an offence would be committed if garbage is illegally discharged into the sea; and any arrangements made should be designed to avoid such a discharge.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports of alleged infringements of regulations S.I. 1988 No. 2292 and S.I. 2293 relating to garbage and merchant shipping have been investigated by his Department since they came into effect.

  Mr. Portillo
  No reports have been received of specific instances alleging infringements either under the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage Regulations (1988 No. 2292) or under the Reception Facilities for Garbage Regulations (1988 No. 2293).

  Pavement Parking
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport when he intends to announce proposals to tackle problems of pavement parking.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to do so shortly.

  Lindane Container (Loss)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to recover the container of lindane insecticide lost in the Channel; and what is being done to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Portillo
  A container containing lindane has been lost in an area of the Channel in which, under a bilateral agreement, the French authorities are responsible for co-ordinating counter-pollution action.

  The Department's marine pollution control unit has maintained close contact with the relevant French authorities throughout the incident and has offered United Kingdom assistance to locate and recover the missing container. We have been assured that they have all the resources they need for the time being.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the French authorities are taking samples of water, sediments and fish.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has given Mr. Newton on taking up his post as chairman of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Paul Channon
  I have today sent the following letter to Mr. Newton setting his initial remit.You take up your position at a time when London Regional Transport faces a number of major challenges.
  First, and the highest priority, is to carry through the actions needed following Mr. Fennell's report on the King's Cross tragedy. A vigorous start has already been made on this vital task.
  Second, there is a need to provide for the projected continuing increase in traffic particularly on the Underground, and for the growing public transport needs of Docklands.
  Third, there is the need to improve the quality of services and the security afforded to the traveller.
  Fourth, it is necessary to complete the effective restructuring of London Buses in order to improve performance and prepare for deregulation in the early 1990s.
  The Board under your chairmanship will tackle these tasks in the light of LRT's general statutory and financial duties, which include the duty to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
  We need a clear long term strategy and a framework of medium term objectives that I would settle with you. For this, I should like you to review LRT's plans in all areas, and put to me by the end of June 1989 your proposals for a management, investment and financial strategy which aims to give London safe and reliable rail and bus services; provides good value for money; and, so far as possible, transfers costs from the taxpayer to the passenger and other beneficiaries. As part of establishing the objectives I would like to agree with you a set of quality of service targets for the Underground.
  You should know that the present provision for LRT in the Government's expenditure plans is for external finance of £287 million in 1989–90 and for the following levels of investment:

  £ million

  1989–90

  486

  1990–91

  540

  1991–92

  461

  595
  I understand that the London Regional Transport board has today appointed Mr. Newton as chairman of London Underground Limited and Mr. Telford Beasley as deputy chief executive of London Regional Transport. I welcome these appointments.

  Vehicle Movements (Monitoring)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to prohibit the collection of data in a form that can trace or monitor the movements of a particular vehicle; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Surveys of vehicle movements provide useful statistical data for transport planning and analysis. No such data on individual vehicle movements collected by the Department are divulged to third parties. Computerised data would be subject to the Data Protection Act and all statistical data are dealt with under the Government statistical service code of practice published as Command Paper 9270 in June 1984.

  The Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill would provide that the Secretary of State could not require information to be furnished to him in a way which enabled him to identify individual drivers of motor vehicles equipped to receive driver information.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what procedures are operational to provide ministerial permission at short notice to waive the collection of tolls at the Severn bridge when requested in the interests of road safety;

  (2) what procedures are available to waive the collection of tolls at the Severn bridge in order speedily to reduce tailbacks of traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: Under section 6(4) of the Severn Bridge Act 1965 the Secretary of State may direct the suspension of toll collection by reason of any accident or other emergency if it appears to him necessary to do so and without making an order or giving notice. Under these powers a procedure has been established for the rapid waiving of tolls when necessary. The use of this procedure would not be justified solely by large volumes of traffic.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the totals and percentages of motorway fatal and other serious accidents, recorded in tailbacks that are(a) predicted and (b) unexpected in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many fatal and other serious accidents on motorways occurred in tailbacks of stationary or slow-moving traffic in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: The stats 19 road accident report form does not record whether there was a tailback at the scene of a road accident.

  Civil Servants (Air Travel)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what criteria airlines are selected for purchase of tickets 596
  for civil servants travelling on official duties (a) within the United Kingdom, (b) in Europe and (c) elsewhere; whether travel agents are used; and whether block bookings are made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: The overall objective in organising travel for civil servants is to obtain best value for money and airlines are selected on this basis. If British airlines can match others in terms of cost and convenience they would, normally be used.

  Each Government Department makes its own booking arrangements.

  Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for 1989–90,1990–91, and 1991–92, the provision for value added tax liability on new construction within the budgets given for local authority capital spending on roads and transport in table 8–1 of "the Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" chapter 8.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local authorities have always been able to reclaim VAT paid on any expenditure not for a business activity. This rule now automatically extends to their road construction programme. VAT paid by their business activities, such as their airport companies, is covered by the normal reclaim procedure applicable to the private sector. Extra provision is not needed.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy to re-evaluate the suitability of the HS 748 Andover aircraft for the air freighting of plutonium to European destinations;

  (2) what studies have been made by his Department of the suitability and safety of (a) Prestwick, (b) Carlisle, (c) Bournemouth Hum, (d) Dounreay and (e) Wick airports for the air freighting of commercial plutonium from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All movements of radioactive materials by air must comply with national and international regulations which require safety to be built into the package design and do not depend for their effectiveness on the use of a particular type of aircraft or choice of airport.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the agreement made on 20 December 1988 between the United Stales Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Japan Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation for the development of criteria for certification of a plutonium air transport cask; whether British Nuclear Fuels plc has been involved with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the JPNC in criteria development; and if he will request the United Kingdom advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials, ACTRAM, to evaluate the developments arising from the agreement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Negotiations between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Japan Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development
  597
  Corporation are a matter for the parties concerned. British Nuclear Fuels plc has not been involved in those negotiations.

  It would not be appropriate to refer these matters to the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials which has completed its programme of work.

  Commuter Services (North London)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to authorise any application for additional investment to relieve overcrowding on British Rail's commuter services north of the Thames.

  Mr. Channon
  In response to a request from the Government early last year, British Rail submitted proposals for additional vehicles for these services. I approved a first tranche of 200 vehicles last October and have today approved a further 124 class 321 vehicles at a cost of £43·4 million to cater for expected future growth in demand. The total of 324 additional vehicles will enable rolling stock north of the Thames to be redeployed in a way which will bring significant relief from overcrowding on commuter services into Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, King's Cross and Euston.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drunkenness
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures of the number of arrests and subsequent convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales for each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of convictions for drunkenness was published in "Offences of drunkenness, England and Wales, 1987" (Home Office statistical bulletin 31/88), a copy of which is in the Library. No information is collected centrally on arrests for drunkenness.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department is giving to the statutory registration of private security companies and private investigators; what mechanisms he has for ensuring that the views of private investigators are taken into account; what consultations his Department has had with the Institute of Professional Investigators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have made it clear that they look to the private security industry to provide self-regulation. Following publication of the report on the industry by the Association of Chief Police Officers, my right hon. Friend asked officials to consider with the police and the industry ways in which self-regulation might be improved and a working group has been set up for this purpose. The Home Office has been in touch with the Institute of Professional Investigators and the institute's views which have been submitted to the Home Office will be brought to the attention of the working group.

  National Pet Week
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to offer support to National Pet Week.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. This does not fall into the Home Secretary's responsibilities.

  "Broadcasting in the 90s"
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has received during the consultation period in relation to the White Paper "Broadcasting in the 90s"; and if he will give the number for each ITV region.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received over 2,900 responses, and a few late submissions are still coming in. A breakdown by ITV region of those responses which could be attributed to a single region could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We have it in mind in due course to place in the Library a list of the main organisations which have submitted comments.

  Steel-cored Bullets
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of the tests carried out by Thomas Alfred Warlow of his Department's forensic laboratory at Huntingdon into the special properties of steel-cored bullets in the penetration of laminated windscreens of vehicles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Warlow examined 12 of the vehicles hit by bullets during the Hungerford shooting incident. Using unfired ammunition recovered from the scene, he measured the velocities of the bullets discharged from the firearms, calculated the kinetic energies and also made micro sections of different bullets and examined their construction. He did not conduct tests of the kind referred to in the question.

  Armed Police
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Avon and Somerset police as to what measures have been taken to improve the training and competence with guns and marksmanship of armed officers in the Avon and Somerset police following reports at the inquest of Glyn Davis, at Cullompton, Devon, in November 1988, that: a police officer fired two revolver rounds at the deceased at a range of 9–10 yards, and missed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  After every armed operation in which shots are fired by police officers the incident is carefully examined to identify the lessons to be drawn. Where necessary these are incorporated into firearms training programmes.

  An independent inquiry into this incident, which took place in darkness, was carried out under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority and no criticism was made of selection, training and safety standards. Avon and Somerset constabulary has carried out its own review and is satisfied that its measures are effective and comply with the national standards.

  Warning and Monitoring Trials
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates, locations and purpose of United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation trials in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  The 1989 exercise dates for the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation are 15 to 16 April, 18 June and 29 October. These exercises, which are designed to practise operational procedures, will involve UKWMO operational controls and monitoring posts throughout the country.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision to review 742 drink-driving convictions in Greater Manchester after the use there of alcohol-impregnated swabs in taking blood tests and the possible review of 1,117 further cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  Between March 1987 and December 1988, police stations in the Greater Manchester police area were issued with blood sampling kits in which the alcohol-free swabs had been replaced by the stores department of the force with swabs acquired from an independent source. It was later found that these locally substituted swabs contained a solution with a very small percentage of alcohol. The blood analysis results in a number of these cases may therefore have been affected. At present, there are known to be a total of 742 cases in which prosecution was based on the results of the blood sample; together with a total of 729 cases in which prosecution was based solely on breath test evidence. In addition, there are a further 388 cases where it is not yet possible to say into which category they fall.

  I am arranging to review as quickly as possible the convictions in all those cases in which prosecution was based on the results of the blood sample, and I will also consider representations from individuals who believe that they were wrongly convicted. Each case will be considered on its merits.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his estimates of the costs to public funds of(a) reviewing 742 drink-driving convictions after use by Greater Manchester police of alcohol-impregnated swabs in taking blood tests and (b) the possible review of 1,117 further cases arising from the mistake.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our present estimate is that the cost to the Home Office is likely to be of the order of £36,000. This figure may be subject to revision when fuller details of the cases are available.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people there are to every police officer in(a) the north-west and (b) nationally; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is set out as follows:600

  1Police/population ratio

  31 December 1988

  31 December 1979

  (a) North-West

  Cheshire

  512

  510

  Cumbria

  426

  424

  Greater Manchester

  372

  394

  Lancashire

  437

  437

  Merseyside

  311

  347

  (b) England and Wales

  407

  414

  1 Population per officer is calculated on the basis of the authorised establishment of each force at 31 December.

  Betting
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his determination under section 1 of the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 of the horserace betting levy scheme beginning 1 April.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have today sent the following letter to the chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and written similarly to the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee. A copy of the scheme has been placed in the Library."In your letter of 1 November 1988 you reported to me that the Board and the Bookmakers' Committee has failed to agree the Scheme to have effect for the 28th levy period and that the Scheme accordingly fell to be determined by me. I have now reached my decision and enclose a copy of the Scheme which I have determined.
  In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions on the issue made to me by the Government-appointed members of the Levy Board and by the Bookmakers' Committee, together with other submissions and representations, including from the Jockey Club and the Horseracing Advisory Council, on which the Board members and the Committee were afforded the opportunity to comment to me.
  As recommended to me both by the Board members and by the Committee, the Scheme is 'shop based', that is to say, levy on the cash horserace betting turnover of betting offices is to be calculated by the reference to the turnover of each individual office, not the turnover of bookmaking companies. Levy on credit betting turnover necessarily has to be fixed on a different basis and is, therefore, to be calculated by reference to a scale which as nearly as practicable equates with the levy rates on cash betting.
  The cash yield from the Scheme will depend upon the level of leviable betting turnover. Assuming a turnover of £4,000 million, the total estimated yield will be about £34·5 million. In their final negotiations with the Bookmakers' Committee, the Levy Board sought some £34 million from the scheme, albeit assuming at that time a somewhat lower turnover. Equally, the Committee subsequently indicated that it was prepared for the scheme to produce some £34 million.
  Like the schemes recommended to me both by the Board members and by the Committee, the Scheme which I have determined is "leveraged", that is to say, should turnover in the 28th levy period increase beyond £4,000 million, for each 1 per cent. such increase the levy yield would be more than 1 per cent. This means that racing as well as bookmaking would benefit from higher turnover. It is, therefore, all the more important to re-emphasise my expectation that the Levy Board as a whole will continue to aim to achieve value for money in its expenditure, continuing and if necessary building upon the arrangements for that which were introduced following the last determination, of the 23rd levy scheme. It is equally important to put on record my confidence that the bookmakers will be able to make their contributions to the levy at the rates in the Scheme without making any increase in their deductions from the punters.
  The rates of levy in the Scheme, whilst in some respects higher than those recommended by the Bookmakers'

  601
  Committee, are overall lower than those sought by the Board. It has not been possible for me to accept the contention of some in the racing industry, to which the Board members have referred, that the target levy yield from this scheme should be set by reference to comparisons with the rates of return from betting to racing in other countries. The facts on this point are disputed and remain unclear.
  I also believe it to be right, under the current levy arrangements, for the needs of racing to be met by the levy to be quantified annually in cash terms, rather than assuming that what is required is a fixed percentage of turnover. Under the levy legislation the rates of levy are to be settled annually. Both the needs of racing and the capacity of bookmakers to make contributions can increase or decrease as a proportion of leviable turnover; they are not necessarily in a precise relationship to one another.
  My statutory duty is to determine a scheme for one year only, and it would not be right for me to say that the rates for the 28th levy period should or should not remain the same in successive schemes. In that it is shop-based, the Scheme represents a novelty. The Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee will no doubt wish to monitor its operation as closely and quickly as possible, and to take the results into account in their negotiations on successive schemes.
  I understand the arguments for the recommendation from the Government-appointed members of the Board that there should be an inquiry into the long term funding of racing. The possible privatisation of the Horserace Totalisator Board is a relevant factor for me to have in mind in reaching my conclusion on the need for, and scope of, an independent and objective assessment of the issues within that recommendation. I will announce that conclusion when I have received and considered advice of Lloyds Merchant Bank as to the feasibility of that privatisation. That advice is expected soon.
  My hope is that the negotiations for the 29th levy scheme will be conducted constructively and in a spirit of co-operation."

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cordless Telephones
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions for breach of the Wireless Telegraphy (Cordless Telephone Apparatus) (Restriction) Order (SI, No. 774) have been made in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England in each of the last three years for which records are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Cordless Telephone Apparatus) (Restriction) Order 1987 (SI, No. 774) came into force on 21 May 1987. Persons contravening the order can be prosecuted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. They can also be prosecuted for the unlicensed use of cordless telephone apparatus under the 1949 Act. My Department can also apply to a court under section 80 (section 81 in Scotland) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 for cordless telephones held in breach of the order to be forfeited, thereby avoiding criminal prosecutions. Finally, members of the public may decide voluntarily to surrender illegal apparatus to my Department, thereby avoiding all court proceedings. The relevant number of cases is as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  Prosecution

  1987

  —

  1

  —

  16

  1988

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1989 (to 20 March)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forfeiture orders

  1987

  —

  —

  2

  4

  602

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  1988

  —

  1

  —

  13

  1989 (to 20 March)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Voluntary surrender

  1987

  4

  —

  2

  71

  1988

  6

  9

  2

  141

  1989 (to 20 March)

  —

  —

  1

  17

  INWARD
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much his Department's support for INWARD has increased in the last three years; how much investment has been secured thereby; and how many jobs have been created or safeguarded.

  Mr. Atkins
  Department of Industry support for INWARD was £263,000 in 1986–87, £380,000 in 1987–88 and £450,000 in 1988–89. During the period INWARD has been involved in securing 40 projects which have resulted in known investment in excess of £94 million and the creation/safeguarding of approximately 1,700 jobs.

  Overseas Companies (North-West)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many overseas owner companies are located in the north-west; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are over 600 foreign-owned companies operating in the north-west. No comparable statistics are available for 1979.

  Foreign Investment (North-West)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many jobs have been created or safeguarded by foreign investment in the north-west since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no comprehensive figures but developments known to the Invest in Britain Bureau indicate that over 11,000 new jobs have been created and approximately 9,300 safeguarded by foreign investment in the north-west since 1979.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on how British companies have complied with the European Community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa during the 12-month period to 30 June 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  By 8 March 1989, 120 companies had submitted reports to the DTI under the code of conduct. Copies of the reports and of the Department's analysis and summary have, as in previous years, been placed in the Library of each House. These documents may also be inspected at the Department's export market information centre, at the British embassy in Pretoria, at the British consulate-general in Johannesburg, and at the British consulates in Cape Town arid Durban.

  The analysis and summary is the third since the adoption of the revised code of conduct by EC Foreign Ministers in November 1985.
  603
  The period under review has seen a further reduction in the number of black employees of British subsidiaries being paid below the code's recommended minimum level, with companies' reports indicating that again over 97 per cent. were paid above this level. In addition, companies continued to report impressive levels of involvement in projects benefiting not only their employees and their families but also the wider communities from which their work forces were drawn. Companies also continued to encourage the growth of black businesses, a new element introduced to the code in 1985.

  The Government are once more grateful to companies for their continued co-operation in providing reports, and urge them to maintain this performance and to comply fully with the code.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the individual payments to be made to the members of the national engineering laboratory supervisory board; and what is the projected total cost of the board's activities.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: some of the board's members are civil servants and Scottish Development Agency employees and these members will not receive any membership fee. The five members who are neither civil servants nor employed by the Scottish

  Establishment

  Location

  Curtailment of work

  NERC Headquarters

  Swindon, Wiltshire

  No

  London

  No

  British Geological Survey

  Keyworth, Nottingham

  No

  London

  1No

  Exeter, Devon

  No

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  No

  Wallingford, Oxfordshire

  No

  (London Information Office)

  Geological Museum, London

  No

  Institute of Oceanographic Science

  Deacon Laboratory

  Wormley, Surrey

  Yes

  Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

  Birkenhead, Merseyside

  No

  Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  Plymouth, Devon

  Yes

  Sea Mammal Research Unit

  Cambridge

  No

  Robert Hooke Institute

  Oxford

  No

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  (Merlewood Research Station)

  Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria

  No

  (Monks Wood Experimental Station)

  Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire

  No

  (Furzebrook Research Station)

  Wareham, Dorset

  Yes

  Institute of Hydrology

  Wallingford, Oxfordshire

  No

  Institute of Virology

  Oxford

  No

  Freshwater Biological Association (until 1 April 1989 when these Institutes become the Institute of Freshwater Ecology)

  (The Ferry House)

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  Yes

  (The River Laboratory)

  East Stoke, Dorset

  Yes

  (Eastern Rivers Unit)

  Huntingdon, Cambridge

  No

  Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology

  University of Sheffield

  Yes

  Water Resource Systems Research Unit

  University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  No

  British Antarctic Survey

  Cambridge

  No

  604
  Development Agency will each be paid a fee of £5,000 per year (plus VAT if the member is registered for VAT purposes). In addition, such members will be entitled to the reimbursement of any travel and subsistence expenses incurred on account of board membership. Because the total cost of meeting expenses claims in a full year cannot be accurately estimated at present, we are unable to give a projected total cost of the board's activities.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the location of each natural environment research council establishment in England, showing whether there are any plans to close any of them or to curtail their work in any way.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows the location of each natural environment research council establishment in England indicating where one or more areas of scientific research is to be reduced in 1989. None of the establishments listed are to be closed. In some cases resources from lower priority areas of scientific research are to be redeployed to support new opportunities or expansion in areas of high priority.
  605

  Establishment

  Location

  Curtailment of work

  Isotope Geology Center

  London

  1No

  Remote Sensing Applications Development Unit

  Farnborough, Hampshire

  No

  Unit for Thematic Information Systems

  University of Reading

  No

  1 Relocating to Keyworth 1989.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received opposing the introduction of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 3,000 letters, expressing a variety of views. These included 29 petitions against student loans, with about 14,000 signatures, and about 170 formal responses to the White Paper from organisations with a special concern for student support. The responses have given us no reason to doubt that our plans are well judged. We shall take constructive criticisms into account as we proceed to develop a scheme for introduction in the autumn of 1990.

  Private Medical School
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what is his policy on setting up a medical school using private finance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Any proposal to alter the present arrangements whereby medical schools receive public funds via the University Grants Committee (or, from 1 April, the Universities Funding Council) would need to be considered on its merits by my right hon. Friend together with the Secretary of State for Health. Important factors would include the demand for trained doctors, and the General Medical Council's involvement in setting and maintaining standards.

  Undergraduates on pre-clinical and clinical medicine courses 1987–88

  Universities in:

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  Full-time

  14,791

  754

  3,498

  724

  19,767

  Part-time

  20

  —

  48

  30

  98

  Of which domiciled in Wales

  Full-time

  649

  304

  28

  4

  985

  Part-time

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Most students following clinical medicine courses are in hospitals for much of their courses.

  Sex Education
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken, following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that in any future considerations of the scope of sex education in schools attention should be paid to the need for this to cover discussion of stereotypes of men and
  606

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many medical schools there are in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland; and whether there is any plans to change these numbers.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are no plans to change the numbers of medical schools, which are 21 in England, one in Wales, five in Scotland (including one which offers pre-clinical studies only) and one in Northern Ireland.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present cost of training medical students in(a) the pre-clinical part and (b) the clinical part.

  Mr. Jackson
  Based on the latest available figures, for the academic year 1987–88, the cost per student charged to the appropriate university cost centre is £9,470 for the two-year pre-clinical part of the course and £23,058 for the three-year clinical part. These figures exclude universities' central costs, associated National Health Service costs and the cost of student support.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many of the medical students presently in universities and hospitals in the United Kingdom originate from Wales;

  (2) how many medical students there are in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table:

  women, and the dangers these represent in marital relationships, as well as to biological and emotional matters.

  Mr. Butcher
  Responsibility for the scope and content of sex education in schools rests with the school governors, in accordance with section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which handbooks relating to the
  607
  national curriculum are currently out of print; when they will be available; for what reasons any delays in supply have occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department issued on 23 February two documents offering general guidance on the national curriculum, circular 5/89 on "The School Curriculum and Assessment" and a handbook for teachers entitled "From Policy to Practice". Nearly half a million copies of the handbook were sent direct to teachers in maintained schools, trainee teachers and local education authorities in the week after publication. The circular and handbook have remained in print and copies are available on request. The first orders and associated documents relating to national curriculum subjects, on mathematics and science attainment targets and programmes of study, were issued with an explanatory circular (6/89) on 14 March. Initial copies have already been sent to all maintained schools, and further copies are being sent to LEAs

  Human Genome Project
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what scientific research is currently sponsored on the human genome project(a) solely by his Department, (b) through the research council, (c) in conjunction with industry, (d) in collaboration with the European Commission and (e) within a multilateral international programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 20 February at column 518.

  Mossley C of E Primary School
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the points raised by the head teacher of the Mossley Church of England primary school about the way in which his local management initiative is being implemented by the local education authority and which have been forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Congleton.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have written to my hon. Friend about the detailed concerns raised by her constituent. It is a key aspect of local management that schools' funding should be determined on the basis of objective need to spend rather than existing spending patterns. The main determinants of needs will be the numbers and ages of pupils. It will be for LEAs to determine the weightings for pupils of different ages after consultation with the governing body and head teacher of each school to be covered by a scheme. My right hon. Friend will consider LEAs' detailed proposals for allocating resources to schools within the overall framework set out in circular 7/88 on local management.

  City Technology College (Surrey Docks)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assurances have been given to the governors of Bacon's school concerning finance for a proposed new city technology college in Surrey docks.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend wrote to the Reverend Canon Gerald Greenwood, director of the Southwark diocesan board of education, the sponsors of 608
  the prospective Bacon's city technology college, on 10 March. That letter confirmed that we would be prepared to make capital grant available, up to a total of £10 million, for the establishment of a Bacon's city technology college on the Surrey quays site. My right hon. Friend made clear, however, that that was subject to the city technology college proposal being adopted by the governors of the Bacon's school, to the outcome of a detailed feasibility study of the costs involved, to the sponsors providing their share of those costs, and to his decision on an application by the governors for his leave to their giving notice of their intention to discontinue the school under the provisions of section 14 of the Education Act 1944.

  My right hon. Friend also made clear that any such approach from the governors would be treated strictly on its merits. The factors he would take into account in these circumstances were set out in his statements of 28 July last year at column 402 and 23 January this year at column 383.

  British Antarctic Survey (Ship)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a contract has been placed for the construction of the new ship for the British Antarctic survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The natural environment research council yesterday signed a contract with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders for the construction of a new ship for the British Antarctic survey, to replace its 33-year-old dual purpose research and logistics vessel, the royal research ship John Biscoe.

  The new ship, which will be named the James Clark Ross, will enable the British Antarctic survey to enhance its marine biology, geology and geophysics research programmes and to strengthen the logistical support which it gives to its bases in Antarctica.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food if he will list by location the forestry projects currently taking place within the three counties of Yorkshire.

  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1 April 1988 and 28 February 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved 157 new applications for planting grants in the three counties of Yorkshire. These are listed:

  Name

  Location by local authority district

  Halton West

  Craven

  Acclom House

  Hambleton

  Moor Close

  Hambleton

  Patch Wood

  Wakefield

  Doncaster Golf Club

  Doncaster

  The Dell Grimethorpe

  Barnsley

  Spring Wood/St. Helens Wood

  Barnsley

  Dotterell Cottage Farm

  Ryedale

  Wentwood House

  Calderdale

  Toad Hall Wood

  Barnsley

  Goskins Farm

  Hambleton

  Beilby Wood

  Leeds

  Catterick Training Area

  Richmondshire

  609

  Name

  Location by local authority district

  Lower Pitcher Clough

  Bradford

  West Moss

  Craven

  Ganton Hall

  Ryedale

  Hunmanby Hall School

  Scarborough

  Ella House Farm

  Hambleton

  Bilton Beck

  Harrogate

  Westbank Farm

  Craven

  White House Farm

  Selby

  Lord Middleton

  Ryedale

  East Witton Estate

  Richmondshire

  Birdsall Estates Co.

  Ryedale

  Skiers Spring Drift Mine

  Barnsley

  Harton Lodge Plantation

  Ryedale

  Kilgram Grange

  Richmondshire

  Lords/Crag Woods

  Craven

  East Farm Sedbury

  Richmondshire

  Longside Woodlands

  Harrogate

  Aldby Park

  Ryedale

  Bridge Cross Farm

  Harrogate

  Hawkshaw Gill/Clarks Carr

  Harrogate

  Manor House Farm

  Calderdale

  Claxton House

  Ryedale

  Catkins Farm

  Craven

  Copley

  Calderdale

  Windmill Farm

  Harrogate

  Carlton Farm

  Harrogate

  Red House Farm

  Richmondshire

  Ribston Estate West

  Harrogate

  Kirkham

  Ryedale

  Todmorden Golf Club

  Calderdale

  Hazelwood Castle

  Selby

  Hook Carr Hill Farm

  Hambleton

  Longlands

  Richmondshire

  Lower Green Edge Farm

  Calderdale

  Hesley Aerodrome

  Doncaster

  Malton/Norton Golf Club

  Ryedale

  Gledhow Valley Wood

  Leeds

  Wyre Hall Farm

  Leeds

  Ribston Estate East

  Harrogate

  Howe Estate

  Hambleton

  Yafforth Road Site

  Hambleton

  Highfield Farm

  Harrogate

  Langton Hall

  Hambleton

  Whitwell

  Ryedale

  East Witton Estate

  Richmondshire

  Ganton Hall

  Ryedale

  Low Fold Farm

  Sheffield

  Hutton Wandesley

  Harrogate

  Kirkby Wood

  Hambleton

  Old Tip Asenby

  Harrogate

  Manor Farm

  Selby

  Towton Estate

  Selby

  Tithe House Farm

  Doncaster

  Cannon House Farm

  Selby

  Linton Woods Farm

  Hambleton

  Wink Lodge

  Doncaster

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  Harrogate

  Coverhead Farm

  Richmondshire

  Pallett Hill Quarry

  Richmondshire

  Squirrel Hall/Manor Farm

  Ryedale

  Hauxwell Estate

  Richmondshire

  Settington House Farm

  Ryedale

  Barlow Common

  Selby

  Loscar Wood

  Rotherham

  Ingbar Plantation

  Craven

  Manor Farm

  Richmondshire

  Wood Farm

  Ryedale

  Upper Helmsley Hall

  Ryedale

  Constable Burton

  Richmondshire

  Banks Ghyll

  Craven

  Halton Dene

  Leeds

  Oakridge Farm

  Calderdale

  Busty Pond

  Hambleton

  Ness Hall

  Ryedale

  Nine Acre Field

  Hambleton

  Home Farm

  Hambleton

  Sleightholmdale

  Ryedale

  610

  Name

  Location by local authority district

  Farndale

  Ryedale

  Land at the Old Brewery Thornton-le-Clay

  Ryedale

  Daletown Hawnby

  Ryedale

  North Farm Fryton

  Ryedale

  Dovecote Cottage

  Ryedale

  Low Park Farm

  Ryedale

  Bransdale

  Ryedale

  Crow Wood

  Hambleton

  Yeavering House

  Hambleton

  Elleron Lodge

  Ryedale

  Carle House Farm

  Hambleton

  Low Moor Farm

  Hambleton

  Three Cottages

  Ryedale

  Cockerdale Farm

  Ryedale

  Dale Farm

  Scarborough

  Wombleton Grange

  Ryedale

  Dale End

  Scarborough

  Newbiggin High Farm

  Scarborough

  Prospect Cottage Farm

  Scarborough

  Whisperdale Farm

  Scarborough

  Thornflatt Farm

  Hambleton

  East Harlsey

  Hambleton

  Kingthorpe

  Ryedale

  White House

  Hambleton

  Crow Wood

  Hambleton

  Low Costa Mill

  Ryedale

  Head House Farm

  Ryedale

  Fairfax Farm

  Scarborough

  Kepwick

  Hambleton

  Mann Farm Broughton

  Ryedale

  Home Farm

  Hambleton

  Wykeham

  Scarborough

  Nostell Priory

  Wakefield

  Thirkleby Warren

  Ryedale

  North House Farm

  Selby

  Red House Farm

  Richmondshire

  Willerby Wold

  Ryedale

  Long Stoop Farm

  Harrogate

  Manor Farm

  Richmondshire

  Beggar Hall

  Harrogate

  Croft

  Richmondshire

  Hauxwell Hall

  Richmondshire

  Higher Kingthorpe

  Ryedale

  Cheese Vat Farm

  Ryedale

  Neasham

  Richmondshire

  Manor Farm

  Hambleton

  Clifton Castle

  Hambleton

  Bramham Park

  Leeds

  West Lowfield Farm

  Hambleton

  Ripley Castle

  Harrogate

  Arkendale

  Harrogate

  Low North and Kirklees

  Scarborough

  Neasham

  Richmondshire

  Landales Wood

  Ryedale

  Manor Farm

  Hambleton

  Little Bottom Plantation

  Selby

  Nabs Wood

  Barnsley

  Low Laithe Farm

  Rotherham

  Ponden Hall

  Bradford

  Kexby Estate

  Selby

  Kirkby Wood

  Hambleton

  Bramham Park

  Leeds

  YWA Leighton Reservoir

  Harrogate

  YWA Thrushcross Reservoir

  Harrogate

  Wentwoodhouse

  Barnsley/Rotherdale

  Brown Rigg

  Scarborough

  High Dales

  Scarborough

  Intervention Stores
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many European Economic Community intervention stores exist in the United Kingdom; where
  611
  they are located; and what were the amounts and products held at each site on the last date for which information is available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At the end of February 1989 140 stores in the United Kingdom were holding products bought into intervention. Their locations, the products and quantities held are as follows:

  Tonnes

  Location

  Feedwhe at

  Barley

  Butter

  Beef

  Aberdeen

  —

  —

  —

  593

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  1,974

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  —

  1,029

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  631

  —

  Banbury

  —

  —

  515

  3

  Belford

  —

  13,508

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  —

  415

  4,388

  Bellshill

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Birmingham

  47,422

  —

  —

  —

  Blackburn

  —

  —

  —

  286

  Blairgowrie

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Bressingham

  18,007

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  —

  —

  195

  —

  Bury St. Edmunds

  —

  —

  —

  121

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  763

  106

  Chichester

  5,937

  —

  —

  —

  Clivedon, Yorkshire

  1,111

  30,923

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  140

  1,450

  Colnbrook

  —

  —

  —

  84

  Coventry

  —

  26,184

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  6,531

  Cullumpton

  —

  —

  1,955

  71

  Derby

  —

  —

  133

  —

  Dumfries

  —

  61,792

  —

  —

  Dundee

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  600

  Duna

  —

  82,005

  —

  —

  Dysart

  —

  32,543

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Ely

  23,576

  21,007

  —

  —

  Evesham

  —

  —

  1,512

  —

  Exeter

  —

  —

  96

  48

  Felixstowe

  —

  33,129

  —

  —

  Fleetwood

  —

  —

  160

  —

  Fraserburgh

  —

  —

  —

  17

  Frome

  —

  —

  475

  —

  Gainsborough

  36,171

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  9

  176

  Glenrothes

  —

  23,821

  1

  691

  Gloucester

  23,966

  —

  —

  —

  Goole

  —

  —

  476

  —

  Grantham

  —

  —

  —

  477

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  11

  —

  Halesworth

  74,190

  —

  —

  —

  Haresfield

  —

  21,172

  —

  —

  Hereford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Heywood

  —

  —

  505

  —

  Hull

  —

  —

  252

  242

  Huntingdon

  12,158

  —

  —

  —

  Kidderminister

  26,805

  30,925

  —

  —

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  178

  2,609

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  649

  119

  London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Londonderry

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Lurgan

  —

  —

  355

  —

  Maldon

  30,717

  —

  —

  —

  Market Rasen

  —

  12,925

  —

  —

  Market Racon

  —

  10,716

  —

  —

  Newmacher

  —

  4,148

  —

  —

  Newmarket

  12,746

  —

  —

  —

  Newport

  —

  —

  1,709

  —

  Newton Abbey

  —

  —

  610

  4,058

  Newry

  —

  —

  —

  20

  North Humberside

  16,637

  16,386

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  454

  Ormiston

  —

  59,345

  —

  —

  612

  Location

  Feedwhe at

  Barley

  Butter

  Beef

  Paddock Wood

  —

  —

  —

  72

  Penicuik

  —

  12,628

  —

  —

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  98

  251

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Portadown

  —

  —

  1,109

  —

  Portbury

  —

  —

  740

  —

  Preston

  —

  —

  613

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  460

  —

  Salisbury

  —

  32,364

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  50

  Scunthorpe

  —

  10,837

  140

  1,417

  Selby

  —

  13,532

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  44

  —

  Sherborne

  —

  —

  944

  —

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  —

  56

  South Shields

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Staughton

  —

  25,304

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  78

  744

  Strachan

  —

  51,006

  —

  —

  Sutton in Ashfield

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Swansea

  —

  —

  237

  —

  Tamworth

  —

  —

  1,729

  205

  Telford

  —

  6,801

  —

  —

  Tranent

  —

  16,766

  —

  —

  Truro

  —

  —

  80

  86

  Turriff

  —

  10,215

  —

  —

  Whitchurch

  —

  18,510

  —

  —

  Whittlesey

  —

  10,635

  —

  —

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  262

  Wigston

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wimblington

  200

  —

  —

  —

  Wisbech

  18,128

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  439

  —

  Total

  355,361

  689,128

  18,479

  29,434

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed in each county of the United Kingdom for the four week period ended 17 March.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the four-week period to 17 March, 643 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were confirmed in the following counties and regions of Great Britain:

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Avon

  14

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Central

  1

  Cheshire

  5

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  5

  Cornwall

  48

  Cumbria

  6

  Derbyshire

  4

  Devon

  73

  Dorset

  82

  Dumfries

  1

  Durham

  2

  Dyfed

  29

  Essex

  1

  Glamorgan Mid

  1

  Glamorgan South

  3

  613

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Gloucestershire

  17

  Grampian

  2

  Gwent

  8

  Hampshire

  49

  Hereford and Worcester

  11

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Highland

  3

  Humberside

  2

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Kent

  27

  Lancashire

  16

  Leicestershire

  12

  Lincolnshire

  6

  Manchester

  1

  Merseyside

  2

  Norfolk

  12

  Northants

  2

  Northumberland

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Oxon

  15

  Powys

  2

  Salop

  5

  Somerset

  39

  Staffordshire

  6

  Strathclyde

  4

  Suffolk

  9

  Surrey

  7

  Sussex East

  7

  Sussex West

  15

  Warwickshire

  3

  Wiltshire

  39

  Yorkshire North

  21

  Yorkshire South

  1

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 3 March 1989,Official Report, columns 373–74, when he intends to introduce an amendment to the Diseases of Animals Protein Processing Order 1981 requiring protein processors to take samples from each day's production and to notify his Department of the results;

  (2), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 3 March 1989, Official Report, columns 373–74, when he intends to lay an order providing for the compulsory bacteriological monitoring of all poultry laying flocks;

  (3), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 3 March 1989, Official Report, columns 373–74, when he intends to introduce measures on the registration of breeding and laying flocks and the registration and monitoring of hatcheries;

  (4), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 3 March 1989, Official Report, columns 373–74, when he intends to strengthen control measures applicable to rodents to further minimise the risk of spread of salmonella;
  614
  (5), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 3 March 1989, Official Report, columns 373–74, when he intends to introduce statutory requirements for the hygienic handling of eggs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 16 March I introduced secondary legislation under the Animal Health Act 1981 requiring poultry flock owners to submit samples from their flocks for salmonella testing and to keep records of the test results.

  An order will also be made as soon as possible requiring protein processors to take samples from each day's production and to notify the results to my Department.

  Animal Blood
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions there are on the importation of products containing animal blood.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The importation of any product containing animal blood is subject to licensing controls exercised by orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981. In addition any such product intended for sale for human consumption must satisfy the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he plans to restrict the use of animal blood in animal feed products;

  (2) whether he is considering further restrictions on the feeding of animal by-products to ruminants;

  (3) what evidence he has on the animal health implications of feeding ruminants with products containing animal blood.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Various pathogens can be transmitted by animal blood. Feeding ruminant animals with protein material, including blood, derived from ruminants has been prohibited since 18 July last year. This ban will remain in place unless processing methods are established which are sufficient to destroy the agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Blood from other animals fed to ruminants must be processed to the standards required by regulations under the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he intends to introduce legislation requiring the labelling of animal feeds with a list of ingredients;

  (2) Whether he has any plans to introduce legislation requiring animal feed products containing animal blood to be labelled as such.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European Council of Ministers is currently considering a proposal which will require suppliers of animal feeds containing more than one ingredient to declare the materials or categories of materials used in them.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has determined the market support prices for potatoes to apply in Great Britain of the 1989–90 crop year beginning 1 July 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Agriculture Ministers have consulted the National Farmers Union about the market support arrangements to apply for the 1989–90 crop year. We have decided to authorise the Potato Marketing Board to enter into pre-season contracts with producers over the period November 1989 to May 1990 at a scale of prices not exceeding a weighted average of £53 per tonne. We have also authorised the board to intervene directly on the market throuhout the season where this will ensure that support can be carried out more cheaply than by purchasing under contract, provided that the total intervention during 1980–90 does not exceed 500,000 tonnes. The target area for potato planting by registered producers in Great Britain was fixed last July at 155,000 hectares.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 24 November to the hon. Member for St. Ives, (Mr. Harris),Official Report, columns 9–10, what action the Government propose to take to designate areas sensitive of nitrate leaching.

  Mr. MacGregor
  After further careful consideration, the Government have reached broad conclusions on the type of agricultural measures which could be introduced in nitrate-sensitive areas. These will now be the subject of extensive consultations with farming, water and other interests. We have also decided that the first designated zones should represent a pilot sample of different types of areas in which a range of agricultural measures can be tested.

  It remains the Government's policy that, wherever possible, any agricultural restrictions should be on a voluntary basis, with compulsory powers available as a fallback. Where farmers are obliged to restrict their agricultural activities beyond the degree which could be regarded as good agricultural practice, they should be compensated. Under currently foreseeable circumstances the costs of compensation would be offset by CAP support savings resulting from reduced agricultural production. As part of their approach, the Government will be mounting an intensive advisory campaign in selected key areas. This will involve visits to individual farmers on specific aspects of good agricultural practice.

  It will be necessary to amend the current provisions in the Water Bill to provide appropriate powers, and the Government will shortly be tabling amendments. We will also be examining carefully the European Commission proposal for a directive on nitrate pollution of water but, in view of the importance the Government attach to this issue, we are anxious to press ahead with pilot schemes.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 20–21 March; and if he will make a statement.
  616
  Mr. MacGregor
  Together with my hon. Friend the Parlimentary Secretary, I represented the United Kingdom at this Council.

  The main business before the Council was the Commission's proposals for farm support prices and related measures for 1989–90. No agreement was reached. The Council will return to the subject at its next meeting on 17 April, with the firm intention of reaching decisions.

  The Council again considered the Commission's proposal on the level of imports of butter from New Zealand between now and 1992, and the linked qustion of the arrangements for imports of sheepmeat. Several member states were unwilling to take decisions, and the butter import arrangements were therefore rolled forward for a further two months until the end of May 1989 on the basis of 1988 quantities.

  Finally the Council adopted a directive regulating imports of meat products from Third world countries with a view to avoiding human and animal health risks.

DEFENCE

  Helicopters
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost at time of purchase of the most recent procurements of(a) one Sea King HAS 3/5 ASW helicopter and (b) one Westland-Augusta EH 101 helicopter.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs.

  Challenger
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost at time of purchase of the most recently procured Challenger FV tank that is currently in service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air misses between hang gliders and military aircraft were reported in 1988; and how many of these were in risk category A.

  Mr. Neubert
  Only one such air miss report was filed in 1988. The joint air miss working group assessed this as category C, that is involving no risk of a collision.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on the publication of the results of inquiries into air misses involving military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 16 February at columns 331–34.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the air miss between a British Airways BAC 1–11 and a Royal Air Force Harrier north of Carlisle on 8 November 1988; and when he expects the results of the inquiry to be published.
  617
  Mr. Neubert
  This reported air miss is currently being investigated by the joint air miss section of the National Air Traffic Services, before being considered by the joint air miss working group. A copy of the group's conclusions will he placed in the Library in due course.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if low-flying training by Royal Air Force aircraft is planned to take place in Morocco.

  Mr. Neubert
  Discussions with the Government of Morocco on ways to strengthen links between the Royal Air Force and the Moroccan Air Force are continuing. The details are confidential.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has obtained a copy of the July 1988 report by the West German Federal Health Office in Berlin into the effects of low-flying military aircraft on the health of children in Bavaria; and what evidence he has on the effects of low flying on the health of children in Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes, my Department has a copy of the West Germany Federal Health Office pilot study report on "Health Effects of Noise from Military Low level Flights". The Department has no specific evidence on the effects of low flying on the health of children in Britain.

  Noise Levels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the policy of purchasing dwellings subjected to noise levels from military aircraft of 125 db (A) or more, set out in his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 3 February,Official Report, columns 447–48, applies to dwellings not located in the vicinity of a military airfield.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the heights, speeds and aircraft types which were found to produce noise levels of 125 db (A) or more in noise test measurements during Exercise Bedlam.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information is as follows:

  Aircraft

  Speed

  Power Setting

  Height (ft)

  Average decibel level at ground level

  Phantom

  507 knots

  Full Reheat

  315

  126dB (A)

  (583 mph)

  Tornado

  433 knots

  Full Reheat

  250

  (126db (A)

  (498 mph)

  Jaguar

  462 knots

  100 per cent.

  250

  126dB (A)

  (531 mph)

  + reheat

  Lightning

  495 knots

  Full Reheat

  250

  126db (A)

  (569 mph)

  Victor

  265 knots

  103 per cent.

  200

  127dB (A)

  (305 mph)

  Vulcan

  256 knots

  100 per cent.

  250

  127dB (A)

  (294 mph)

  618

  Aircraft

  Speed

  Power Setting

  Height (ft)

  Average decibel level at ground level

  VC10

  298 knots

  Full Power

  250

  125dB (A)

  (343 mph)

  The hon. Member will wish to note that the above figures are not representative of general military low flying in the United Kingdom arid I would refer him to my predecessor's reply of 13 June 1988 to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) at column 70.

  Range Activity (Otterburn and Spadeadam)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire of 3 February 1989,Official Report, column 448, if he will now publish figures showing the extent of range activity by aircraft at Otterburn and Spadeadam in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  Otterburn is primarily an Army artillery range and the use of the facility by aircraft is extremely limited. It would not be possible to detail this usage in terms of number of aircraft and sorties flown without disproportionate cost and effort.

  The following represents the number of 10-minute flying slots utilised at Spadeadam range in the years 1985–88. Records prior to 1985 no longer exist.

  Year

  Number

  1985

  6,330

  1986

  6,348

  1987

  5,959

  1988

  4,645

  Lindholme Facility
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the Royal Air Force communications facility at Lindholme near Doncaster; which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces provide personnel to operate the Lindholme facility; how many personnel are based at the Lindholme facility; and what are their ranks and functions.

  Mr. Neubert
  840 Signal Unit at Lindholme forms part of the defence communications network and is entirely United Kingdom manned. It is not our practice to give details of the strength and composition of operational units.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for expansion of Territorial Army units based in the west country.

  Mr. Neubert
  As part of the phase II enhancement of the Territorial Army announced by the Government in 1984 the establishment of the Territorial Army in the west country has been increased by over 850 personnel. Of these additional numbers 175 will have been incorporated into existing Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Military
  619
  Police units and the balance into the formation of new Infantry, Army Air Corps and Royal Army Ordnance Corps units.

  The main enhancement to the infantry is the formation of a new home defence battalion, 4 Devon and Dorsets, with companies based at new TA centres at Exeter, which has just been completed, and Paignton and Plymouth which are both under construction. A new company of the RAOC, 94 Ordnance Company, will be based at Keynsham, near Bristol, while the Territorial Army's first and currently, only squadron of the AAC is at Middle Wallop. All these units have been formed and are gradually increasing towards their established strength.

  No additional enhancements to the RTA are currently planned.

  Tractors
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the purchase of tractors capable of transporting light armoured vehicles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no plans at present to purchase tractors for transporting light armoured vehicles. The purchase option will however be considered when the arrangements for meeting this requirement in BAOR are reviewed later this year.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place between his Department and the company currently leasing Mercedes tractors to the British Army of the Rhine regarding their availability in the event of hostilities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Agreement in principle has been reached with the company leasing Mercedes tractors to BAOR regarding their availability in the event of hostilities. Consultations are continuing on the terms of the amendment of the contract to cover this aspect.

  6 Brigade
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what helicopters will be specifically assigned to 6 Brigade.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no helicopters specifically assigned to 6 Brigade as, following its trial in the air mobile role, it is being converted to an armoured brigade.

  Date

  Location

  Visitors

  February 1989

  Falkland Islands

  Sir Dudley Smith

  John Ward

  Keith Mans

  Gwilym Jones

  Bruce Grocott

  Elliot Morley

  William Ross

  March 1989

  Cyprus

  Eddie Loyden

  Frank Cook

  Jacques Arnold

  Nicholas Bennett

  Tim Devlin

  Harry Cohen

  M109 Howitzer
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding has been provided to Royal Ordnance plc or Vickers Defence Systems plc for trials of their suggested replacement for the M109 self-propelled howitzer.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  British Land Forces (Europe)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the figure for the average number of British land forces stationed on the mainland of Europe that was reported to the council of the Western European Union in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  NATO (Nuclear Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "Modernising NATO's Nuclear Weapons", by Oliver Ramsbotham.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence library has a copy of this book.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his Department's Library a copy of "In the Dark—Parliaments, the public and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's Nuclear Weapons", by Scilla Elworth Mclean.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence library has ordered a copy of this publication.

  Overseas Forces (Members' Visits)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those hon. Members who have visited British forces overseas in the last two years involving expenditure of public money, showing the units visited by each.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 10 February 1989, at columns 861–62 with the addition of the following:

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bases in Yorkshire employ private security firms(a) to guard entrances to the bases and (b) in any other capacity; and for which armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agriculture
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out for each of the last four years the

  Imports and Exports of Agricultural Commodities Northern Ireland—Republic of Ireland

  Description

  Imports to Northern Ireland from Republic of Ireland

  Exports from Northern Ireland to Republic of Ireland

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Live animals

  Cattle

  206,030

  210,974

  148,891

  177,328

  22,717

  13,548

  14,152

  27,998

  Pigs

  62,116

  66,777

  59,584

  45,371

  177,561

  64,160

  2,909

  5,552

  Poultry

  2,611,066

  3,349,596

  2,884,803

  1,527,165

  2,118,484

  3,227,280

  3,780,784

  5,681,032

  Products

  Meat of bovine animals Fresh, chilled or frozen1 (tonnes)

  59,757

  86,375

  89,376

  64,321

  14,687

  9,984

  9,459

  10,610

  Meat of swine Fresh, chilled or frozen (tonnes)

  13,046

  17,078

  20,743

  19,911

  15,725

  16,785

  13,067

  12,511

  Poultrymeat: fresh, chilled or frozen (tonnes)

  2,066

  2,133

  3,536

  n/a

  7,350

  8,368

  8,427

  n/a

  Eggs in shell ('000)

  3,830

  4,550

  7,760

  10,896

  160,094

  114,588

  70,151

  58,530

  Cereals (tonnes)2

  140,227

  230,430

  269,328

  215,196

  10,996

  7,904

  8,181

  4,475

  Butter (tonnes)

  1,782

  2,560

  2,307

  2,866

  464

  2,411

  3,093

  243

  Skimmed Milk Powder (tonnes)

  300

  463

  1,562

  1,168

  878

  535

  1,242

  378

  1 A significant proportion of these imports are believed to have been in transit to Great Britain.

  2 Barley, oats and wheat. Excludes cereal seed.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Salary
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what allowances are included in the official income of the Secretary of State for Health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. The official salary received by the Secretary of State for Health is set in accordance with the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1988. He receives a ministerial salary of £34,479 and a reduced parliamentary salary of £18,148. In addition he retains an entitlement to allowances available to other Members.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Demonstrations (Lhasa)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government about the recent shootings of demonstrators in Lhasa; and if he will make a statement.
  622
  volume of the main agricultural commodities recorded as flowing in each direction between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the financial amounts payable from European Community resources in respect of each category.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The information available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise records on the volume of trade in main agricultural commodities is given in the table. The financial amounts payable which may have derived from the European Community are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 March to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) at column 364. In addition the ambassadors of the troika in Peking have carried out a demarche on behalf of the Twelve at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the situation in Tibet, in context of the commitment of the Chinese authorities to ensure full respect for human rights.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of cases to date in which the United Kingdom has appeared before the European Court of Human Rights for breach of article 10 of the European convention; what was the judgment given; how many cases and who are the claimants that are pending to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of article 10 of the European convention in one case brought against the United Kingdom. In The

  623
  Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, which concerned contempt of court, the court found a violation by 11 votes to nine.

  There are five cases pending before the Commission in which the Government have submitted, or have been requested to submit, observations on article 10 of the convention. In three of these cases the applicants have not agreed to their identity being disclosed. The remaining two cases have been brought by Times Newspapers Ltd. and Neil, and by Atkinson and others.

  Israel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further talks he proposes to have with the Israeli authorities about open discussions to seek a solution to mutual problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We remain in close touch with the Israeli authorities and look forward to welcoming Mr. Shamir to London soon.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether relations between the European Community and the Council of Europe were discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council discussed relations between the EC and the Council of Europe and agreed to continue the existing practical co-operation and to intensify political level contacts between the two organisations.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 20 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 20 March. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  The Council was preceded by an informal meeting of EC and EFTA Foreign Ministers. This noted the close economic and political links between EC and EFTA, and the importance of strengthening and expanding co-operation on the lines laid down in the 1984 Luxembourg declaration. The meeting welcomed M. Delors' call for a more structured relationship and the results of the meeting of EFTA Heads of Government in Oslo on 15 March, and agreed to establish a new bilateral dialogue with a view to a further ministerial meeting in the autumn. The United Kingdom warmly welcomes this new drive to deepen the relationship between the Community and its EFTA neighbours.

  The Council discussed progress in the GATT Uruguay round and preparations for the meeting of the GATT trade negotiations committee in Geneva in early April confirming the guidance given to the Commission in November.

  The Council also agreed to improve contacts between the Community and the Council of Europe.
  624
  An EC-Malta Association Council also took place.

  In the framework of political co-operation the Twelve reaffirmed the unacceptability of Iranian behaviour over the Rushdie affair and the continuing ban on high-level visits.

  Chemical Weapons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to investigate the links between the firm Pen-Tsao-Materia-Medica Centre, based in Hong Kong, the firm Imhausen-Chemie A. G. based in Lahr, and the export of chemicals for the alleged chemical warfare agent factory at Rabta in Libya; and if he will raise the matter of dual-use chemicals export from the European Community at the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting of the EEC.

  The Foreign Affairs Council on 20 February adopted an EC directive controlling the export of eight "core" chemical precursors. All these chemicals were already subject to United Kingdom export control. The United Kingdom continues to work closely with other countries to tighten restrictions on the export of chemical weapon-related precursors and equipment.

  Ex-President Marcos
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he has received any representations from the Philippines Government to help them trace such assets of former President Marcos as may be in Britain or have been in Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Philippines authorities have brought several cases to our attention. We have always co-operated fully.

  Namibia
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has concerning the organisations which will be responsible for the registering and processing of Namibian detainees held by the South West Africa People's Organisation after the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435;

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining the provisions which are made in the United Nations settlement plan for the safe return of Namibians held in South West Africa People's Organisation camps in Angola and Zambia;

  (3) what information he has on the number and names of Namibians currently detained in South West Africa People's Organisation camps in Angola and Zambia;

  (4) what representations he has received during the last year concerning the fate and condition of Namibian detainees held by the South West Africa People's Organisation in Angola and Zambia;

  (5) what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of mechanisms in Angola and Zambia to ensure that Namibians resident outside Namibia are given a free and voluntary choice whether to return to Namibia to take part in free and fair elections under the United Nations plan; and if he will make a statement;
  625
  (6) what recent steps he has taken within the United Nations or other organisations to ensure that the lives of those Namibians detained by the South West Africa People's Organisation are not endangered and that they are permitted to return to Namibia to participate in the forthcoming elections;

  (7) what recent representations he has made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning the Namibian detainees held by the South West Africa People's Organisation in their camps in Angola and Zambia; and what response was received to these representations.

  Mr. Eggar
  We condemn human rights abuses whenever they may occur. We are aware of allegations of ill-treatment by SWAPO of detainees held in their camps in Angola and Zambia. This is primarily a matter for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to investigate, but we have raised the issue with SWAPO. We have also made our concern known to the office of the high commissioner.

  The United Nations plan for Namibian independence provides for the release of political prisoners and detainees and the voluntary return of exiles. We shall naturally do everything we can do to assist the United Nations Secretary General and his staff to ensure that all the provisions of the United Nations plan are implemented.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the status of the informal understandings reached in 1982 on the question of United Nations impartiality during the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia;

  (2) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy as to the extent to which the United Nations is to be regarded as responsible for guaranteeing that relevant parties adhere to the letter and spirit of the impartiality package referred to in the United Nations Secretary General's report of 23 January on the question of Namibia;

  (3) whether he has any information about any mechanisms which may be in place to ensure that all relevant parties concerned with the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia adhere to the provisions of the impartiality package;

  (4) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the details of the impartiality package referred to in the United Nations Secretary General's report on 23 January on the question of Namibia.

  Mr. Eggar
  The provisions of the impartiality package referred to in the hon. Member's question have not been made public. However, the United Nations Secretary General confirmed in his report of 23 January (United Nations document S/20412) that the package remained binding on the parties. The Secretary General's report was in turn approved by United Nations Security Council resolution 632 of 16 February. We for our part shall do all we can to assist the United Nations Secretary General and his staff in ensuring that the provisions of the impartiality package are fully applied.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on 626
  recent progress by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on development loans to Brazil, relating to the power sector and rain forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The World Bank has development lending for the Brazilian power sector under consideration. The scope of the bank's proposed second power sector loan is under review between the bank and the Brazilian authorities. I cannot say when these discussions will be concluded or what the outcome will be. I have given an assurance to concerned non-governmental organisations that we will consult them, if and when a loan is put to the World Bank's executive board, before we decide what line to take.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conditions under which Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to give reconstruction aid for use internally in Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We shall not consider Government-to-Government aid for reconstruction until Vietnam has fully withdrawn from its illegal occupation of Cambodia.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has had about the working of the footpath and rights of way sections of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of representations on these sections have been received. We are awaiting the advice of the Countryside Commission, which is monitoring the operations of the rights of way provisions in the 1981 Act and which has already published two reports.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate what the average community charge would have been in April 1989, based on the estimated level of domestic rates.

  Mr. Ridley
  Illustrative community charge figures for 1989–90 will be published when local authority budget returns have been received.

  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a ward sister would pay(a) in community charge and (b) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80–20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroom flat in Hornsey.

  Mr. Ridley
  A ward sister earning £15,000 living in a flat in Hornsey worth £70,000 would pay a community charge of £291 (disregarding the transitional safety net) and £875 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the same basis as table E5 in the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government", what percentage
  627
  of householders in Barnsley, Central constituency whose equivalent net income falls in the range of (a) £100 to £200 per week and (b) £400 to £500 per week would, on 1988–89 figures, pay a higher net community charge, un-safety netted, than net rates.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the same basis as table F5 in the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government", what percentage of householders in The Wrekin constituency, whose equivalent net income falls in the range of(a) £100 to £200 per week and (b) £400 to £500 per week would, on 1988–89 figures, pay a higher net community charge, un-safety netted, than net rates.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the same basis as table F5 in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", what percentage of householders in Norwich, South constituency whose equivalent net income falls in the range of(a) £100 to £200 per week and (b) £400 to £500 per week would, on 1988–89 figures, pay a higher net community charge, un-safety netted, than net rates.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is not available. The table in the Green Paper was based on a sample survey which cannot provide reliable estimates for individual constituencies.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the proposed introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend and I receive a variety of representations about the new system of local government finance. Recently, they have tended to be concerned with the detail of the community charge regulations.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for the community charge regulations for England and Wales being laid before the House.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following statutory instruments on the community charge in England and Wales were laid before the House on 17 March.

  The Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989

  The Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order 1989

  The Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989

  The Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations 1989

  The Community Charge (Information Concerning Social Security) Regulations 1989

  These form the bulk of the regulations on the community charge. Further regulations will be laid later this year, in the summer and autumn.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the present status of the Price Waterhouse study on the forecast of costs; and whether he intends to carry out any further assessments of the unit costs of implementing and calculating the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government commissioned the firm of Price Waterhouse to undertake an independent study of 628
  preparation and collection costs of rates reform in England and Wales. The report was published in June 1988 and its findings taken into account in allocating resources to charging authorities. I have no plans to carry out a further study.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations from the European Commission of the implementation of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider exempting from the community charge those who have been deemed educationally subnormal or statemented under the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides a community charge exemption for adults who are severely mentally impaired, as defined in the Act. I have no plans to amend that definition.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek to enable local authorities to make arrangements with individuals who wish to pay the community charge on behalf of another charge payer.

  Mr. Gummer
  It was always envisaged that local authorities could offer this facility, and practice note No. 12 published last month contained advice on its implications.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations which have requested copies of "You and the Community Charge", published in December 1988 and the number of copies distributed.

  Mr. Ridley
  The booklet has been requested by local authorities; educational establishments; charitable, church and voluntary bodies; businesses; and political organisations.

  In addition, hon. Members and many members of the public have asked for copies. In total, approximately 900,000 copies have been distributed so far. Orders for a further 100,000 are currently being dealt with. Demand continues.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of "You and the Community Charge", published in December 1988, have been printed to date; what were the initial one-off costs of art work and creative design; and what is the total cost to date of copies printed.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has printed 1,800,000 copies so far, reflecting a continuing high demand for this booklet. Art work and design cost £10,227. Printing has cost £115,427.

  Agricultural Land (Building)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to encourage the release of agricultural land for building at a faster rate; and if he will make a statement.
  629
  Mr. Howard
  No. It is frequently inappropriate to release agricultural land for building.

  Young People (Housing)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals for enabling young people to enter the housing market either as tenants or owner-occupiers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have provided for an 80 per cent. increase over the next three years in the finance available to the Housing Corporation to provide new houses to rent and to promote low-cost home ownership including shared ownership. The deregulation of new private lettings will also encourage landlords to make more homes available to rent

  Land Disposals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many directives he has made to owners of land on the land register under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to dispose of their holdings; and, of these, how many have been disposed of.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many directives he has made to owners of land on the land register to dispose of their holdings; and, of these, how many have been disposed of.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many directives he has made to owners of land on the land register to dispose of their holdings; and, of these, how many have been disposed of.

  Mr. Trippier
  The power to direct disposal of land entered on the land register can only be exercised site by site. By the end of February 1989 I had directed the owners of 77 sites to take steps to dispose of their interest in the Land. To date 42 of the sites have been sold.

  Wildlife Preservation
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to preserve wildlife.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already afford protection to all birds and to other species of animal or plant considered to be endangered and to any area of land considered to be of special scientific interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geographical or physiographical features. The schedules of protected species are reviewed every five years and, as a result of the last quinquennial review, 48 species of animals and 31 species of plants received added protection. The next review is scheduled for 1991.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his response to the request by the County Hall Development Group for a waiver from Lambeth Council's request for an environmental impact statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend directed on 14 March that an environmental statement was not required.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the ban on the use of products in his Department which contain chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received a number of representations about the use of chlorofluorocarbons by Government Departments.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the world's chlorofluorocarbon production is made in Britain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures for United Kingdom production of CFCs are not available for reasons of commercial confidentiality. In 1986, it is estimated that the European Community accounted for some 40 per cent. of world CFC production.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken since the international ozone conference to encourage the replacement of chlorofluorocarbons and halons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A message will be delivered from my right hon. Friend as chairman of the "Saving the Ozone Layer" conference on the first day of the meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol in Helsinki on 2 May.

  Mr. Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what percentage cuts in(a) consumption and (b) production of chlorofluorocarbons Her Majesty's Government are committed; and by when.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the Montreal protocol and the implementing European legislation, production and consumption of CFCs must be reduced by 20 per cent. by 1994 and by a further 30 per cent. by 1999. On 2 March the EC Environment Council, in response to a United Kingdom initiative, called for the protocol to be strengthened so as to require a cut in production and consumption of CFCs of 85 per cent. as soon as possible, and their complete elimination by the end of the century.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to reintroduce legislation to tackle the problem of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Montreal protocol requires cuts in production and consumption of CFCs of 50 per cent. by 1999. Within the overall framework of the EC regulation implementing the protocol in the Community we are strongly encouraging industry to reduce use of CFCs to the maximum possible extent. As a result of the steps industry is taking on a voluntary basis the United Kingdom will more than halve its consumption of CFCs by the end of 1989, 10 years ahead of the protocol requirement. If, however, extra powers are needed to back up this voluntary action we shall take them. The United Kingdom and its EC partners have now called for CFC production and consumption to be cut by at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible with a view to their complete elimination by the end of the century, and for the protocol to be strengthened accordingly.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many countries which attended the
  631
  current month's London conference on the ozone layer indicated that they would sign the Montreal protocol on reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 20 countries attending the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference indicated their firm intention of ratifying or acceding to the Montreal protocol. A further 14 countries stated that they would give serious consideration to becoming parties to the protocol

  Rivers (Discharge Consents)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to seek to increase the penalties currently available to the courts for dealing with those who breach their consents to discharge into rivers.

  Mr. Howard
  The maximum penalties which may be imposed by magistrates for offences under section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. On indictment in the Crown court there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed and terms of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review but there are no immediate plans for increasing them.

  Pield Heath Nurseries, Uxbridge
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision on the appeal concerning Pield Heath nurseries, Uxbridge.

  Mr. Howard
  As my hon. Friend will recall from the answer given on 27 January 1989 the further views of the parties are under consideration. A decision will be reached as soon as this process has been completed.

  "Environment in Trust"
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many "Environment in Trust" leaflets have been printed to date; and at what cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 25,000 sets of "Environment in Trust" leaflets have been produced so far, at a print cost of £99,760. In addition, the one-off costs of creative design and artwork are £117,594.

  Rate Increases
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils in respect of rate increases in 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  None, although I met it to discuss the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90 on 30 November last.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the use of unleaded petrol in the European Community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are committed to promoting unleaded petrol in the European 632
  Community and have played a major role in securing the agreement to directives which cover the requirement for new cars to run on the fuel and its availability in Europe.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in demand for unleaded petrol since January 1987.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the month to mid-February, unleaded petrol accounted for 5·5 per cent. of the market. Demand has increased more than fiftyfold since figures were first made available in April 1987 when uptake stood at less than 0·1 per cent.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals the Government have for encouraging wider use of unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget raised the duty differential between 4-star leaded and unleaded fuel by an additional 4p a gallon. This should result in a price difference of about 10p per gallon at the pump. It is the second largest differential in the European Community. I am confident that it will ensure a continued rapid increase in take-up of unleaded fuel. The average motorist travelling 10,000 miles in a year stands to save about £35. The Chancellor has also increased the duty on 2-star leaded petrol which will encourage the switching of storage facilities to unleaded petrol, and ensure that the number of outlets continues to rise rapidly. The Government will continue to take steps to promote the widest possible use of unleaded petrol.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that water authorities are penalised for supplying polluted water as drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Clause 51 of the Water Bill will make it an offence for a water undertaker to supply water unfit for human consumption. The penalty for an offence may take the form of a fine or imprisonment. Under clause 19 of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to enforce compliance with drinking water quality standards set by regulations made under the Bill.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of English Heritage to discuss the improvement of visitor facilities at Stonehenge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I met Lord Montagu on 28 February.

  English Heritage produced a very imaginative scheme for a new visitor centre some time ago. There has been a delay in taking it forward through the normal planning procedures because of the need to find a route for access to the centre which satisfactorily balances the Army's security and operational needs with the interests of visitors, other landowners and the local community. However, I very much hope that we are now close to a solution.

  Norfolk Structure Plan
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any representations about the Norfolk structure plan during the last six months.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's publicity budget for 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  The provisional budget is £7·5 million including support costs.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government expect to publish their response to the second report from the Environment Select Committee on toxic waste HC22-I.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to respond to the Environment Committee's second report on toxic waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As soon as possible.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to strengthen the regulatory regime for policing sites for the dispersal of toxic waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Extended and strengthened controls over waste disposal were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 29 June 1988 and I put forward supplementary proposals on 23 November 1988. In addition, on 24 January 1989 the Government issued a consultation paper, "The Role and Functions of Waste Disposal Authorities", proposing to separate those authorities' operational and regulatory functions and promote the more effective control of waste disposal. Legislation to enact these measures will be introduced as early as possible during this Parliament.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to ensure that councils deal promptly with applications by their tenants to buy their homes.

  Mr. Trippier
  As I announced in my answer of 10 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) at column 699, provisions came into force on that date enabling tenants whose applications are delayed by the landlord to have rent payments put towards the purchase price.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. T'rippier
  From April 1979 to December 1988 about 1 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to encourage council tenants to buy their homes.
  634
  Mr. Trippier
  As I announced in my answers of 9 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bo wis) at column 672 and 10 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) at column 699, we intend to increase the maximum value of discount from £35,000, and have brought into force new measures to help tenants whose applications are delayed by their landlord.

  Public Housing (Transfers)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he will make to ensure an orderly interaction between tenants' choice and other mechanisms for transferring public housing to the private sector.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of the Environment and the Housing Corporation have today issued a joint statement. This sets out detailed arrangements for ensuring a smooth and sensible interaction between tenants' choice on the one hand; and voluntary disposals by local authorities and transfers by new town development corporations; the Commission for New Towns and housing action trusts on the other hand. The main principle proposed is that particular dwellings should be subject to only one transfer proposal at any one time, and that proposal should be allowed to run its course before any other transfer proposal affecting the same dwellings can be put in train. Copies of the statement have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been received under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988 for transfer of the housing stock of local authorities; and how many he has approved.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Regulations have recently been laid before Parliament to implement the tenants' choice scheme on 5 April.

  Land Registers
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of sites, and their area, on land registers for each of the bodies listed in schedule 16 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as amended.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House today.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to include specific vacant sites of under one acre to he listed on land registers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to include specific vacant sites of under one acre to be listed on the land registers.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes).

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long it will take for the land currently on the land registers to be removed therefrom.
  635
  Mr. Trippier
  Land is removed from the land registers either when it is brought into use, or sold, or where part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 ceases to apply to the owning body. The large number of separate public bodies whose unused or underused land is entered on the registers and the variety of circumstances related to each site make any prediction as to the time taken for the land currently on the register to be removed meaningless. At the end of February 1989 there were 84,400 acres of land on the registers: in 1986 10,200 acres of land were removed; in 1987 15,460 acres and in 1988 10,940.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all vacant, unused and underused land held by Government Departments is now included on the land registers.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all vacant, unused and underused land held by Government Departments is now included on land registers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Mr. Trippier
  From the time the first land registers were compiled, Departments have provided details of land that meets the criteria for entry on the registers of unused and underused publicly-owned land maintained by my right hon. Friend under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Generally, sites less than one acre in area are not entered on this register.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of sites, and their area, on land registers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 owned by each Government Department.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites, and of what area, on land registers are owned by each Government Department.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites, and of what area, on the land registers are owned by each Government Department.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is set out in the table which shows the position on 28 February 1989.

  Department

  Number of sites

  Total area (acres)

  Department of health

  230

  4,605

  Department of the Environment

  35

  1,005

  Ministry of Defence

  39

  699

  Department of Transport

  40

  382

  Department of Energy

  12

  140

  Home Office

  3

  5

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of planning reports from his Department's inspectorate awaiting his decision, and if he will list them, giving the dates they were submitted by the inspectorate.

  Mr. Chope
  At the end of February 182 reports on planning appeals by the planning inspectorate were 636
  awaiting decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I will write to the hon. Member with details of these cases.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I met the chairman of the Sports Council on 20 March together with the chairmen of the regional councils of sport and recreation. We discussed a number of issues relating to sport and recreation. I also had a private dinner with the chairman of the Sports Council yesterday evening.

  Rate Increases
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average percentage increase in domestic rates in 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  The available figures now show an average domestic rate increase in England of between 8 and 9 per cent.

  Urban Development Corporations (Land Sales)
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by urban development corporation the cash sums raised from land sales each year since designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of the 10 UDCs established in England, only London Docklands and Merseyside development corporations reported receipts from land sales up to the end of 1987–88. For the figures for London Docklands I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 21 February 1989, at column 569 to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Receipts reported for Merseyside development corporation are as follows:

  Financial Year

  £000

  1982–83

  6

  1983–84

  120

  1984–85

  —

  1985–86

  72

  1986–87

  291

  1987–88

  225

  Manchester City Council
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the leader of Manchester city council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State for the Environment last met the leader of Manchester city council, Mr. Graham Stringer, during a visit to the Central Manchester urban development corporation on 28 July 1988, which was the main topic of discussion.

  Refrigerant Gases
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will launch a programme to finance the safe disposal of existing refrigerant gases.
  637
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Both United Kingdom manufacturers of chlorofluorocarbons, and some refrigeration companies, already offer a recycling service for used chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants free of charge.

  Pollution
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the contribution that individual citizens might make towards reducing pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The individual citizen can make a considerable contribution towards the reduction of pollution. The prevention of litter and the choice of environmentally friendly products—for instance the use of lead-free petrol—are among the many examples of the action that can be taken.

  Overbuilding (Outer London)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the further representations he has received from London borough representatives and others on overbuilding in outer London, including during the 23 February meeting at his Department and since that date.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed several planning issues with hon. Members and councillors representing a number of the London boroughs at a meeting on 23 February. Those present have not made any further representations about overbuilding. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 8 March at column 525, which sets out the further advice we have given to local planning authorities in London about residential densities.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he will meet the football authorities to discuss the implementation of identity cards for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no present plans to meet the football authorities but would be happy to do so whenever they feel this would be helpful and a mutually convenient date can be found.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the likely cost to football clubs of introducing a football membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is not possible to estimate the financial effects of the scheme until its details, particularly the technology to be employed, have been settled. I understand that a number of companies have said that with co-operation from the football authorities and proper marketing and management, the scheme could be set up and run at no cost to the clubs.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his proposals are for the transfer of football passes between one person and another.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The details of the national membership scheme for football supporters will be for the football 638
  membership authority to draw up and submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for approval. A central premise of the scheme is that membership cards will not be transferable.

  Rivers (Discharge Consents)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum level of fines for breaching consents to discharge into rivers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway).

  Black Country Development Corporation
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited the Black Country development corporation; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend last visited the development corporation on 15 February this year. Matters discussed related to the regeneration of the corporation's area including major projects such as the propose Sandwell mall and he Black Country spine road.

  Council Officers (Political Activity)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the acceptable extent of party political activity by local government officers earning above £13,500.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have concentrated on the appropriateness of applying political restrictions to the staff concerned rather than the extent of party political activity allowed to them. The representations have reinforced us in our view, that public political activity by such staff is unacceptable where it could conflict with the officers' duties. Our proposals in the Local Government and Housing Bill focus on those cases.

  Dogs (Registration)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for a national dog registration scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 23 January to my hon. Frined the Member for Thanet, North, (Mr. Gale) on 23 January 1989 at column 461.

  Ozone Layer (Conference)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ozone conference.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the international conference on the ozone layer held in London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The outcome of the highly successful "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference
  639
  was summarised in the chairman's message prepared by my right hon. Friend. Copies of the message, together with a more detailed account by the conference rapporteur, have been placed in the Library.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the sale to the public of the nine English water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The nine English water authorities will be privatised by the end of 1989.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes meeting the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss water privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend met the chairmen on Monday 20 March. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

  Childhood Cancer (Humberside)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding has been made available by his Department for the London School of Hygiene's small area health statistics unit; and what progress has been made to date by the unit in analysing the incidence of childhood cancer in Humberside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The costs for the small area health statistics unit so far total £507,894 of which the Department has provided £167,605. As I explained to my hon. Friend in my letter of 20 March 1989, the unit is not yet fully operational and has not so far been able to undertake studies in specific areas. However, the question of the SAHSU analysing the incidence of childhood cancer in Humberside has been referred to the steering committee for the unit and I should expect the committee to reach an early decision on whether further investigation would be worthwhile and should be undertaken.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters in England and Wales met European Community standards in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Moynihan
  In December 1979, the Government identified 27 bathing waters in England and Wales under the terms of the EC bathing water directive (76/160/EEC); 18 of these met the mandatory standards for coliform parameters in the directive. This continued to be the position until 1986 when an extended survey of 354 bathing waters in England and Wales was carried out. The Government announced early in 1987 that these waters would be included within the scope of the bathing water directive. In 1987, 197 out of 360 identified waters in England and Wales (55 per cent.) met EC standards. In each year compliance has been assessed on the basis that at least 95 per cent. of the samples met the mandatory standards.

  Sheffield UDC
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the first corporate plan from the chief executive of the Sheffield urban development corporation.
  640
  Mr. Trippier
  I expect to receive Sheffield development corporation's first corporate plan early in the summer.

  Cheap Housing
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his proposals on cheap housing deals between councils and developers.

  Mr. Howard
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the announcement in the House by my right hon. Friend on 3 February 1989 at columns 433–34 about the role of the planning system in securing the release of land for low-cost housing to meet specific local needs in rural areas.

  My Department has received a considerable number of inquiries and representations in response to our announcement which has been generally welcomed as a positive measure in helping to meet the need for suitable low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Rate Support Grant (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rate support grant for Basildon district council 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  Basildon district council is not entitled to block grant in 1989–90. Its block grant position has not changed since 1988–89. Basildon's proposed 74 per cent. rate increase cannot, therefore, be justified by changes in its block grant.

  Sewage (Discharge Consents)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many temporary relaxations in sewage works discharge consents have been allowed within the past 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not at present held centrally. Details of applications made and consents granted under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are held on each water authority's register although in the past the consents may not always have included details of any time limits which had been agreed. Current practice is however, that any time limits which apply to consent conditions are specified as part of the consent and therefore included on the register.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress local councils are making in putting their services out to competitive tender under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  The competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 are being implemented in stages under regulations made in July 1988. The first round of work won in competition has to be under way by 1 August this year with further rounds by 1 January and 1 August in subsequent years. A substantial number of authorities are going out to tender well ahead of the timetable and dividing up the work into sensible packages. Where anti-competitive practice is alleged by contractors my officials are following up the cases vigorously.

  Waterways (Pollution)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of British waterways fall below acceptable European Community standards for pollution.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There is no European Community legislation setting general quality standards for waterways. However, the United Kingdom has designated some 50,000 km of waterways for the purposes of the EEC directive on the "Quality of freshwater needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life" (78/659/EEC).

  In 1984, a survey showed that over 90 per cent. of these waterways met all the directive's mandatory standards.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his current plans for addressing the problem of homeless families in the light of the recent Audit Commission report, "Housing the Homeless: the Local Authority Role".

  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on 22 February at column 700.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to help overcome the problems faced by the single homeless in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have taken a number of measures designed to assist the single homeless who do not fall into a priority need category. These include funding the Housing Corporation's programme of hostels and shared housing, which nationally has approved at least 18,500 places since 1981, and giving priority to key workers through the Housing Corporation's mixed funding programme with a total of £58 million being made available in 1988–89 for this initiative. The Department has produced a leaflet which has been widely distributed, encouraging householders to take in lodgers; and we have also funded a IYSH trust leaflet which informs young people of their housing options before they leave home. The Housing Act 1988 will, of course, increase the amount of private rented accommodation, in the sector where young people have traditionally sought accommodation.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider reallocating capital receipts in stress areas to help local authorities provide homes for homeless households.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to do this. The incidence of homelessness is, however, taken into account when capital allocations for housing are distributed to local housing authorities.

  Tenants' Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce details of the tenants' incentive scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Corporation invited comments by 6 March on its proposal to introduce a tenants' incentive scheme in 1990. The corporation is considering the responses.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the highest rental arrears recorded for(a) Langbaurgh borough council and (b) Middlesbrough borough council; in which months they occurred; and what is the present position.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tables showing the rent arrears outstanding to English local authorities as at 1 April 1987 and 1988 are in the Library. I have no information for other months of the year.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he has for enabling local authorities in rural areas to make provision for local housing need.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 3 February at column 433. A further announcement, about increased Housing Corporation funding for housing associations, was made by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing in another place on 7 February. Together, they will significantly increase low-cost housing provision for local need in rural areas.

  Drinking Water (Oxford)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the monitoring of the quality of drinking water supplied by the Thames water authority to the Oxford area.

  Mr. Howard
  Thames Water carries out daily monitoring for a number of substances in water supplied to the Oxford area, and undertakes about 7,000 analytical determinations a year. Further information may be obtained from the water authority.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current trend in the supply of affordable rented accommodation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The annual number of lettings of local authority and housing association housing has held up well in recent years. Our plans to increase private investment in the housing association sector and the 80 per cent. increase in the Housing Corporation's programme should significantly raise the output of new subsidised housing association dwellings.

  Rates (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much Derbyshire county council's rate has increased since 1981–82; and what was the average for all other counties over the same period.

  Mr. Gummer
  Derbyshire county council's precept has increased by 161 per cent. since 1981–82. The average rise for all other counties since 1981–82 is 106 per cent.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that
  643
  unscheduled archaeological sites of importance discovered in the course of site clearance following the granting of planning permission for redevelopment can be excavated and recorded prior to redevelopment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration for the determination of planning applications, whether or not that monument is scheduled. Local planning authorities may also wish to impose conditions requiring developers to allow access for archaeologists to observe work and record items of interest.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the section 7(1) submissions received by him from the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation in the last three months.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the last three months the development corporation has submitted one section 7(1) application in respect of housing, associated uses and open space on a 16·7 ha site at Norton Fields, Runcorn. Statutory consultations in relation to this application are being undertaken.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in his discussions with private water companies concerning his request that they shall not raise water charges for 1989–90 by more than 10 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 14 March at column 211–12 pursuant to the answer I gave to his question of 23 February.

  Association of County Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the officers of the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Association of County Councils and the other local authority associations on 29 November last year. The matters discussed were the associations' responses to the consultation papers "Capital Expenditure and Finance" and "Local Authorities' Interests in Companies".

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to revise the granting of tax allowances to large corporations in enterprise zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no plans at present to revise enterprise zone benefits.

  District Plans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether planning inspectors take into account draft district plans before they complete their statutory confirmation.
  644
  Mr. Chope
  In dealing with called-in planning applications and appeals, inspectors may have regard to local plans that are going through the statutory procedures leading to their adoption or approval. The weight to be accorded to such a plan will increase as successive stages in the statutory procedures are reached. Further advice is given in DOE circular 22/84.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewer outfalls discharge untreated sewage into coastal waters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 20 March at column 420.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when concessions were granted by his Department to South West Water to discharge raw sewage into fresh watercourses in the South Hams constituency; for how long the concessions last; and if he will review the arrangements;

  (2) what quantity of raw sewage is discharged into fresh watercourses, following concessions granted by his Department to South West Water; how regularly it is permitted; and what steps are taken to neutralise that discharge so that the waters are purified to an acceptable standard;

  (3) how many concessions have been granted by his Department to the South West Water authority to discharge raw sewage into fresh watercourses on the South Hams constituency; and how many have been granted for the towns of Dartmouth, Salcombe, Totnes, Ivybridge, Brixham and Kingsbridge.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: No such concessions have been granted by the Department.

  Information is not held by the Department in a form which would allow the identification of discharges in any particular area or, where appropriate, any time limits imposed. Details of all consents granted a water authority are, however, held on the register maintained by the water authority which may be inspected, free of charge, at all reasonable hours.

  The only discharges of untreated sewage to inland waters are from storm and emergency overflows. By definition, the operation of these is intermittent and thus conditions imposed reflect this and prescribe when a discharge may take place.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes meeting representatives of small businesses to discuss non-domestic rating.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministers and officials from my Department frequently meet representatives of both large and small businesses to discuss the Government's arrangements for a fairer and more stable non-domestic rating system from 1 April 1990.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act since 1974.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The main provisions of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were brought into force between July 1984 and October 1986. These provided for more effective protection of inland surface and underground waters, the extension of controls to cover all coastal and estuarial waters and public involvement, for the first time, in the water pollution control system.

  These provisions are to be re-enacted and where appropriate strengthened in the Water Bill.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average percentage increase in water rates to be charged by the statutory water companies over the coming year.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) on 14 March at columns 211–12, pursuant to his question on 23 February.

  Urban Dereliction
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by urban development corporations in tackling urban dereliction over the last year.

  Mr. Trippier
  Excellent progress has been made. Many illustrations were recorded in "Progress on Cities", produced on 9 March to mark the anniversary of the action for cities initiative. Three particular projects announced that day give an indication of the scope and diversity of UDC activities: a major subsea research, development and testing centre (Teesside DC); a £.1·8 million environmental improvement scheme for the historic Castlefields area of Manchester (Central Manchester DC) and a construction industry training centre in conjunction with Henry Boot Training Ltd. (Black Country DC).

  Housing (Brent)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the housing investment programme allocation for 1989–90 for the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Trippier
  An initial allocation of £15,233 million has been made.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the first report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be published.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first report of HMIP was published today.

  The report gives a full account of the inspectorate's activities and achievements in its first year of existence,
  646
  from April 1987 to March 1988, and touches on some of the major developments in 1988–89. HMIP's first annual report comes at a time of increased awareness of environmental and pollution issues. It should be of interest to everyone with a direct concern in pollution control including central and local government, industry, pollution specialists, pressure groups and researchers.

  We set up HMIP in 1987 to provide a more effective and efficient basis for carrying out pollution control. Its formation laid the foundation for an integrated approach to pollution control. We accept that improving environmental standards demands high levels of monitoring and enforcement and adequate resources. The inspectorate's first report demonstrates the vitally important contribution that its activities are making to the protection and enhancement of the environment.

  We have already taken the lead in Europe in preparing an integrated pollution control system. Integrated pollution control is the way legislation on environmental protection will develop across Europe in the 1990s.

  The system will enable us to achieve a real and lasting overall reduction in pollution. We have recently strengthened the inspectorate's professional capability by the addition of 13 posts. This will ensure that they will remain in the vanguard of the Government's initiatives on environmental policy.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rate Defaulters (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were imprisoned in England year by year since 1979 for defaulting on their domestic rate payments; and what was the average term of imprisonment.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of people imprisoned in England and Wales since 1979 because of non-payment of rates was:

  Number

  1979

  525

  1980

  465

  1981

  415

  1982

  483

  1983

  461

  1984

  420

  1985

  384

  1986

  366

  1987

  350

  Information for England only and on the average term of imprisonment could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Magpies
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further studies he has made, since 1985, of the increase in the number of magpies in England and Wales, and the effect of this on the songbird population, particularly in the south of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nature Conservancy Council has supplied information on the magpie population from the results of the common bird census
  647
  carried out annually by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). The NCC advise that magpie numbers in parts of southern England have increased markedly in recent years. Present evidence, pending the outcome of further studies, is that predation by magpies is only one of a number of complex factors affecting the population of small birds.

  I understand that a research project by the BTO and the university of Sheffield, sponsored by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, will commence shortly to assess the effect of magpies on songbird populations. The Game Conservancy has a study under way of magpie predation of gamebirds.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average housing association rent in Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Islington, Westminster and the City of London; and what this is predicted to be for (i) fair rent tenancies and (ii) assured tenancies by 1991 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1988 the average annual registered rents for housing association property in the London boroughs specified, with the exception of the City of London for which no information is available, were as follows:

  £

  Camden

  1,424

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,382

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,339

  Islington

  1,299

  Westminster

  1,630

  The figures include both furnished and unfurnished accommodation, but do not include rents for property let under assured tenancies or occupied under licence for which information is not available.

  No predictions are made of future rent levels.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing associations and local authority homes have been completed annually between 1978–79 and 1988–89 in the central London boroughs of Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Islington, Westminster and the City of London.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding completions reported as taking place in these housing authorities in each calendar year from 1980 to 1987 appear in the "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas; 1980 to 1987". Figures for 1978, 1979 and the first half of 1988 were published in "Local Housing Statistics" issues 49, 59 and 87 respectively.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Water Quality
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report the number of breaches in 1988 in the EEC guide levels and maximum concentrations for (a) iron, (b) manganese, (c) copper, (d) zinc, (e) phosphorus, (f) barium, (g) cadmium, (h) chromium, (i) mercury, (j) nickel and (k) lead in water intended for human consumption supplied by the Thames water authority from the Hampton treatment works;
  648
  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the number of breaches in 1988 in the EEC guide levels and maximum concentrations for (a) herbicides, (b) fungicides, (c) PCBs, (d) insecticides, (e) total bacteria counts, (f) faecal coliforms and (g) faecal streptococci in water intended for human consumption supplied by the Thames water authority from the Hampton treatment works;

  (3) if he will list in the Official Report the number of breaches in 1988 in the EEC guide levels and maximum concentrations for (a) chlorides, (b) sulphates, (c) magnesium, (d) sodium, (e) potassium, (f) nitrates, (g) aluminium, (h) nitrites and (i) phenols in water intended for human consumption supplied by the Thames water authority from the Hampton treatment works.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from Thames water authority that the water leaving the Hampton treatment works complied with the standards set in the EC drinking water directive for all the parameters listed by the hon. Member during 1988 except for a single sample which exceeded the herbicide standard.

  I have no information in relation to EC guide levels.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had from Dr. John Houghton, director general of the Meteorological Office, about his request for information about the climatological consequences of the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department will continue to keep in touch with the work led by Dr. John Houghton which I described in my reply to the hon. Member on 17 March,Official Report, column 367.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewerage outlets discharge untreated raw sewage into the sea.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).

  Construction Aggregates
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish new guidance on the supply of construction aggregates.

  Mr. Chope
  Planning guidelines for aggregates provision in England and Wales are being published today in mineral planning guidance note 6 and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. It updates and replaces advice issued previously in DOE circular 21/82 and Welsh Office circular 30/82 and has been prepared following a public consultation exercise in 1988. The guidelines recognise that there is a need to ensure continuity of supplies to the construction industry of basic raw materials, and to meet demand. However, it is very important to strike the best balance of social, environmental and economic costs, and the guidelines demonstrate the burden of responsibility on mineral planning authorities in deciding applications for aggregate mineral extraction.
  649
  Aggregates working is often noisy, dusty and visually intrusive and the Government believe that industry, in consultation with local planning authorities, should make every effort to reduce these damaging effects. There is also a need to apply the national and regional guidelines at the mineral planning authority level and the Government believe that this important work should be treated as a priority task by the planning authorities and the regional aggregates working parties. In addition this recent review of the guidelines and the public consultation exercise have highlighted a number of long-term supply issues and these will be addressed by the Government through the Department of the Environment's mineral planning research programme.

  London Residuary Body (Superannuation Fund)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from the London residuary body in respect to the transfer of its superannuation fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has received proposals from Sir Godfrey Taylor, chairman of the London residuary body (LRB), under section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985 for the transfer to a new corporate body on 1 April 1990 of the superannuation fund and associated functions, rights and liabilities which it inherited on the abolition of the former Greater London council.

  My right hon. Friend is minded to accept the LRB's proposals, with certain modifications, and will shortly be commencing consultations with the London boroughs, including the City, and other interested parties over an outline for the transfer of these responsibilities. The scheme proposes the establishment of a new "London Pensions Fund", a corporate body with a membership of between seven and 11 members appointed by my right hon. Friend. It would have an independent chairman, with the remaining board members being drawn equally from London local government and independent sources. It is proposed that the London Pensions Fund would be brought within the scope of local government legislation.

  My right hon. Friend will also be seeking views on the establishment of a voluntary consultative committee which he might consult over appointments to the London Pensions Fund.

  Transferred Property (Sales)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his policy will be in relation to requests for his consent under sections 105 and 133 of the Housing Act 1988 to sales of transferred property by a mortgagee or chargee in possession.

  Mr. Trippier
  Subject to certain exceptions (notably sales under the right to buy), sections 105 and 133 of the Housing Act 1988 require my consent to be obtained before property which has been transferred by local authorities under section 32 or 43 of the Housing Act 1985 or by public sector landlords under part IV of the 1988 Act ("tenants' choice") may be disposed of by its new owners.

  We understand that some prospective acquirers of property under these powers have it in mind to apply, at the time when a mortgage or other charge is granted on transferred property as security for a loan, for my consent
  650
  to subsequent disposals should certain defined circumstances arise. My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider all applications for consent under sections 105 and 133 on their merits. Subject to that, however, my right hon. Friend will be prepared in principle to consider sympathetically applications at the time when such mortgages and charges are to be granted for my consent under either section 105 or section 133 to subsequent disposals of transferred dwellings by named mortgagees and chargees in the exercise of a power of sale, provided:
  that the dwellings to be disposed of are vacant when the power of sale is exercised;
  that the sales are to individuals intending to use the dwellings as their only or principal homes; that the sales are at the best price that can reasonably be obtained; and that the sales are by the mortgagee or chargee in exercise of the power of sale contained in the original mortgage or charge.

  Forest Proposal (Midlands)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has considered and responded to the Countryside Commission's proposal for the creation of a new forest in the midlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: I understand that the Countryside Commission intends to submit proposals For the creation of a new forest in the midlands to the Department later this year, alter considering a feasibility study by consultants and carrying out consultations with the Forestry Commission and other interests.

  Docklands (Tourism)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to develop tourism in docklands.

  Mr. David Trippier
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The LDDC fully recognises the tourism potential of docklands. It has responsibility for tourism and leisure, projects to improve information to tourists and the tourism industry, projects to conserve and improve the environment and restore historic buildings, and it is attracting imaginative private sector developments, including proposals likely to bring in visitors. Public transport improvements are also helping.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what tourist facilities are being built into Canary wharf.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Canary wharf is planned to include 500,000 sq ft of retailing arid other leisure facilities and extensive public places.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce new limits for diesel engine pollutants emissions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  We shall be consulting shortly on regulations which will apply limits on gaseous emissions from diesel engined vehicles for the first time.

  For cars we shall apply European standards in two stages. The first stage (directive 83/351/EEC') sets

  651
  standards identical to those which currently apply to petrol-engined vehicles. It will take effect on 1 October 1990. The second stage (directive 88/76/EEC) will apply the same limits that will mean the general fitment of catalysts to petrol-engined cars. It will take effect by 1 October 1993.

  On 1 October 1990 we shall also apply the European particulate limits for diesel-engined cars (directive 88/436/EEC). Special arrangements in line with all these directives will be made for direct injection diesel-engined cars.

  For all other diesel-engined vehicles we shall apply the recently agreed European standard on gaseous emissions (directive 88/77/EEC) at the earliest date permitted, 1 October 1990.

  Discussions are continuing in the European Community on a tightening of the 88/77/EEC standards and on the introduction of particulate limits for these other categories of vehicle.

  UN Environment Programme
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who represented Her Majesty's Government at the latest United Nations environment programme conference in Basle on the international trade and regulation of hazardous and toxic wastes; what proposals were made at the conference by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement about the outcome of the conference.

  Mr. Ridley
  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside led the United Kingdom delegation at the diplomatic conference in Basle. I will make a statement about the conference as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected residual regional develpment grant expenditure for Scotland for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Estimated gross expenditure on regional development grant, including both the original and revised schemes, in 1988–89 is expected to be around £76 million. Planned net provision for 1989–90 is £61·2 million—details are published in the supply estimates.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected regional selective assistance expenditure in Scotland for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Planned net provision for regional selective assistance and related schemes (including regional enterprise grants), consistent with the figures published in "Public Expenditure to 1991–92, A Commentary on the Scotland Programme," for 1989–90, 1990–91 aand 1991–92 is £63 million, £80 million and £80 million respectively.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure on regional development grant for each of the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 inclusive, and the estimated expenditure for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Total gross expenditures on regional development grant under both
  652
  the original and revised schemes in the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 inclusive are £143 million, £109·2 million, £107·5 million, £170·2 million and £78 million respectively. Estimated gross expenditure in 1988–89 is expected to be around £76 million. Planned provision for 1989–90 is published in the Supply estimates. Planned net provision, consistent with the figures published in "Public Expenditure to 1991–92, A Commentary on the Scotland Programme", for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is approximately £30 million.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Development Agency about its future.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have regular meetings with the board of the Scottish Development Agency about its future plans. Most recently, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Chairman, Sir David Nickson, on 7 March.

  Landfill Sites (Inspectors)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inspectors responsible for landfill sites are currently employed in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The authorities responsible for landfill sites are the district and islands councils. The hazardous waste inspectorate of the Scottish Development Department, which examines the management of hazardous waste by the responsible authorities, employs six staff for a part of their time equivalent to about two full-time officers.

  Illegal Dumping
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards central Government subsidy of incinerators as a means of removing the cost incentive for illegal dumping.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Government policy is that the full costs of disposal and treatment should be met by waste producers. The Government have proposed strengthened and extended controls, including a duty of care on producers and holders of waste to ensure its legal disposal.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards the imposition of heavier fines on people convicted of illegal waste-dumping.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Fine levels are set against a five point standard scale, which is subject to periodic review. The penalty imposed in any individual case is for the court to determine.

  Re-Chem Incinerator (Bonnybridge)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the closure of the Re-Chem incinerator at Bonnybridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The Government received four representations in 1984, two from industry, one from the industrial

  653
  waste panel (Scotland) and one from Glasgow college of technology expressing concern about the closure. None has been received since then.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards the compilation of a register of hazardous waste producers, with information relating to the means of waste disposal in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The disposal of controlled waste in Scotland is governed by the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 1977 and the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980. All waste must be disposed of at a site which is being used in accordance with a licence issued by the waste disposal authority for the area, and the waste disposal authority must keep available at its principal office a register of these licences. The special waste regulations make provision for a system of consignment notes to be used by those who produce, transfer for disposal or dispose of special waste so that the waste disposal authority concerned is properly informed.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his policy to give statutory powers of enforcement to the hazardous waste inspectorate in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The proposals for amendments to waste disposal law, which were announced by the Scottish Development Department on 14 February, including the placing of the inspectorate on a statutory footing.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are proposed for giving citizens in Scotland greater access to information about the transportation and disposal of waste in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Under the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland) Regulations 1977, every waste disposal authority keeps a register of site licences, which is available for public inspection at its principal office. Some of the Government's proposals to strengthen and extend the controls on waste disposal, including the registration of waste handlers, will result in greater public access to information.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take in order to deter illegal waste dumping in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: The Government support the proposals in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill to deter illegal waste dumping. The Scottish Development Department will shortly be issuing a follow-up consultation paper on waste disposal law amendment, which will address the subject.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the transportation of waste from Scotland to Third world countries in exchange for foreign currency.
  654
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: This information is not held centrally, but the hazardous waste inspectorate of the Scottish Development Department Is not aware of any traffic of this kind.

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of landfill sites by district in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Our latest information on the number of landfill sites where an operating licence or council resolution is in force is as follows:

  Number

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  3

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5

  Roxburgh

  3

  Tweeddale

  1

  Tweeddale

  1

  Central

  Clackmannan

  6

  Falkirk

  19

  Stirling

  8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  5

  Nithsdale

  6

  Stewartry

  10

  Wigtown

  9

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  20

  Kirkcaldy

  17

  North East Fife

  9

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  16

  Banff and Buchan

  19

  Gordon

  14

  Kincardine and Deeside

  8

  Moray

  11

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2

  Caithness

  7

  Inverness

  1

  Lochaber

  8

  Ross and Cromarty

  5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  3

  Sutherland

  8

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  9

  Edinburgh

  12

  Midlothian

  11

  West Lothian

  15

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  1

  Clydebank

  1

  Clydesdale

  7

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3

  Cunninghame

  16

  Dumbarton

  5

  East Kilbride

  6

  Eastwood

  3

  Glasgow

  12

  Hamilton

  10

  Inverclyde

  4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4

  Kyle and Carrick

  4

  655

  Number

  Monklands

  6

  Motherwell

  8

  Renfrew

  17

  Strathkelvin

  14

  Tayside

  Angus

  11

  Dundee

  7

  Perth and Kinross

  21

  Islands

  Orkney

  18

  Shetland

  6

  Western Isles

  7

  TOTAL

  469

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change there has been in the level of employment in Scotland since 1979.

  Number of incidents

  Year

  Wildlife

  Domestic animals

  Number of victims (baits only)

  Species involved

  Number of species

  Pesticides involved

  1984

  10

  12

  2

  Eagles

  2

  Aldrin

  Buzzards

  4

  Chloralose

  Peregrine Falcon

  1

  Mevinphos

  Tawny Owl

  1

  Strychnine

  Corvids

  10

  Gulls

  4

  Pigeons

  4

  Song birds

  8

  Domestic animals

  17

  1985

  20

  8

  4

  Eagles

  3

  Chloralose

  Buzzards

  9

  Mevinphos

  Sparrow Hawk

  1

  Strychnine

  Corvids

  12

  Gulls

  18

  Pigeon

  1

  Foxes

  2

  Domestic animals

  13

  1986

  19

  6

  2

  Eagle

  1

  Chloralose

  Buzzards

  10

  Mevinphos

  Sparrow Hawks

  2

  Strychnine

  Kestrel

  1

  Herons

  6

  Corvids

  4

  Gull

  1

  Pigeons

  2

  Fox

  1

  Domestic animals

  13

  1987

  23

  8

  7

  Eagles

  2

  Chloralose

  Buzzards

  9

  Fenthion

  Corvids

  40

  Mevinphos

  Gulls

  3

  Strychnine

  Pigeons

  2

  Song birds

  3

  Domestic animals

  9

  1988

  20

  9

  6

  Eagles

  4

  Bendiocarb

  Buzzards

  7

  Carbofuran

  Tawny Owls

  2

  Chloralose

  Corvids

  27

  Metaldehyde

  Gulls

  6

  Mevinphos

  Pigeons

  4

  Strychnine

  Song birds

  10

  Fox

  1

  Hen Harrier

  1

  Domestic animals

  11

  656
  Mr. Lang
  Between June 1979 and June 1988 the civilian work force in employment in Scotland is provisionally estimated to have fallen by 77,000, but in the most recent five years there was an increase of 106,000. These estimates are subject to revision when the results of the 1987 census of employment become available.

  Wildlife Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last five years the number of cases of wildlife poisoning in Scotland caused by the illegal use of pesticides or poisoning; and if he will identify the species involved and if possible the poison or pesticide involved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of incidents and affected species involving the illegal use of pesticides or misuse of poisons against wildlife in Scotland, as confirmed by the wildlife incident investigation service, in each of the years from 1984 to 1988, are given in the table.
  657

  Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is Forestry Commission policy on leaving unplanted areas of archaeological, scientific or wildlife value on Forestry Commission land; and whether the commission has a rule of thumb as to the percentage of unplanted land it will maintain in its operational forests;

  (2) whether the Forestry Commission has examined the wildlife conservation value of its properties in the lowlands of England and Wales; what is the policy of the commission on leaving areas in such properties unplanted if this is seen to be in the best interests of nature conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The wildlife conservation value of the Forestry Commission's properties throughout Great Britain has been carefully examined in the course of drawing up conservation plans for each of its forest districts. These plans contain environmental management policies for the forests as a whole and prescriptions for sites of particular conservation value.

  All well-designed forests have a proportion of open space within them for environmental as wel as practical reasons. These include not only roads and rides needed for operational purposes, but open spaces left for the protection of sites of archaeological value, the provision of deer glades, the needs of particular flora and fauna, and the development of recreation. Open spaces near water are of particular value. Since each conservation plan is tailored to the circumstances of individual sites, there is no fixed percentage of land to be left unplanted, but it is often of the order of 15 per cent. Where open space is lacking in existing forests opportunities are sought to create it at the earliest practical opportunity.

  Further information is given in the four environment leaflets published recently by the Forestry Commission, copies of which are in the Library. In addition, the commission is preparing a more comprehensive booklet giving guidelines on nature conservation in forests.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and areas of woodland grant scheme applications in excess of 100 hectares submitted since the start of the scheme in Scotland, showing for which of these an environmental assessment has been requested by the Forestry Commission; and if he will give reasons why environmental assessment has not been requested for any remaining applications.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Those applications received under the woodland grant scheme for more than 100 hectares of new planting in Scotland are listed in the tables. Environmental assessments have been requested for nine of these applications. An environmental assessment was not requested for the others, either because the applications were received before the environmental assessment provisions took effect or because they did not meet the criteria specified in the Forestry Commission booklet "Environmental Assessment of Afforestation Projects". A copy of this booklet is in the Library.

  In addition, environmental assessments have been requested for six applications of less than 100 hectares.
  658

  Name

  Region

  Area (ha)

  Applications for which an Environmental Assessment was requested

  Auchenroy and Dalcairnie

  Strathclyde

  419

  Brabster farm 2

  Highland

  564

  Corrielair

  Highland

  458

  Cnoc Nan Gall

  Highland

  231

  Gorteneorn

  Highland

  296

  Gulls Nest

  Grampian

  298

  The Hope

  Highland

  233

  Pitcarmick

  Tayside

  160

  Turbiskill Farm

  Strathclyde

  207

  Applications for which no Environmental Assessment was requested

  Ashkirktown

  Borders

  228

  Lumsdane

  Borders

  130

  Philogar

  Borders

  161

  Shankend II

  Borders

  154

  Bannockburn

  Central

  223

  Castlewood

  Central

  117

  Albierigg and Barascroft

  Dumfries and Galloway

  178

  Archbank and Pirnierig

  Dumfries and Galloway

  209

  Breckonside

  Dumfries and Galloway

  189

  Drumhumphrie

  Dumfries and Galloway

  127

  Ericstane

  Dumfries and Galloway

  168

  High Muir

  Dumfries and Galloway

  105

  Knockower Plann A

  Dumfries and Galloway

  278

  Knockower Plann B

  Dumfries and Galloway

  215

  Ballindalloch

  Grampian

  214

  Ben Rinnes the Convals

  Grampian

  596

  Berryley

  Grampian

  164

  Berrymoss

  Grampian

  129

  Boghead of Inverkeithley

  Grampian

  107

  Chraad farm

  Grampian

  160

  East Side Glendye

  Grampian

  1,077

  Hillpark

  Grampian

  110

  Hillside

  Grampian

  203

  Jocks Hill

  Grampian

  309

  Parkmore

  Grampian

  170

  Shians

  Grampian

  245

  West Touxhill

  Grampian

  161

  Achany

  Highland

  147

  Coishletter

  Highland

  602

  Corrary

  Highland

  163

  Dundreggan

  Highland

  107

  Glentruim

  Highland

  365

  Knoydart

  Highland

  681

  Limekiln and Whitewell

  Highland

  1,072

  Lochluichart (1)

  Highland

  253

  Lochluichart (2)

  Highland

  218

  Lochluichart (3)

  Highland

  211

  Lochluichart (4)

  Highland

  250

  Loubcroy

  Highland

  202

  Maol Donn

  Highland

  272

  Moll

  Highland

  101

  Sciberscross

  Highland

  790

  Strathvaich

  Highland

  360

  Trien plantation

  Highland

  164

  Tulchan

  Highland

  373

  Wyvis Estate

  Highland

  317

  Craigshiel Block A

  Strathclyde

  176

  Crossaig

  Strathclyde

  142

  Darbyburn Forest

  Strathclyde

  657

  Kilwhannel

  Strathclyde

  115

  Lambhill

  Strathclyde

  554

  Lambhill

  Strathclyde

  619

  Lennox

  Strathclyde

  255

  Lochorodale

  Strathclyde

  259

  Mosslingal

  Strathclyde

  530

  North Carse

  Strathclyde

  359

  Pennyghael

  Strathclyde

  105

  Upper Beoch

  Strathclyde

  582

  Brerachan

  Tayside

  189

  Fossoway

  Tayside

  165

  Glen Sherup

  Tayside

  123

  Kinnaird

  Tayside

  214

  North Hill

  Tayside

  103

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the Forestry Commission's planting operations in 1987–88, in terms of(a) direct costs of the planting in the year and (b) supervisory costs and overheads related to that planting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  New planting

  Restocking

  Direct (forest) costs

  4·37

  6·59

  Supervisory costs and overheads

  1·53

  3·51

  Total costs

  5·90

  10·10

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and purchase dates of the blocks of land of areas greater than 100 hectares which were newly planted by the Forestry Commission in 1987–88.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Name

  Location1

  Area (hectares)

  Year of purchase

  Glenforsa

  Mull (North)

  160

  1977

  Dyke

  Dornoch (North)

  163

  1976

  Dalnessie

  Dornoch (North)

  243

  1957

  Invershin

  Dornoch (North)

  171

  1978

  Achormlarie

  Dornoch (North)

  257

  1983

  Dunans

  Cowal (Mid)

  129

  1980

  Skipness

  Kintyre (Mid)

  182

  1972

  Camusericht

  Perthshire (Mid)

  243

  1975

  Glassie Hill

  Perthshire (Mid)

  298

  1982

  Kinnelhead

  Nithsdale (South)

  121

  1965

  Dalwyne

  Ayrshire (South)

  323

  1984

  Drumlamford

  Newton Stewart (South)

  164

  1983

  Laggish

  Newton Stewart (South)

  147

  1983

  1All the land was in Scotland. The locations shown are by Forestry Commission forest districts, with the conservancy indicated in brackets.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas of land the Forestry Commission proposed to newly plant in the year 1988–89; and if he will list, by Forestry Commission conservancies, the total area to be planted and the names and locations of the blocks over 100 hectares.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Areas proposed for planting

  Conservancy

  Area (hectares)

  North England

  81

  East England

  16

  West England

  17

  Wales

  81

  North Scotland

  1,929

  Mid Scotland

  1,092

  South Scotland

  955

  Total

  4,171

  660

  Areas over 100 hectares

  Name

  Location1

  Area (hectares)

  Scotsburn

  Easter Ross (North)

  199

  Glenforsa

  Mull (North)

  150

  Corriemonie

  Fort Augustus (North)

  139

  Loch an Doire

  Lochaber (North)

  114

  Invershin

  Dornoch (North)

  183

  Achormlarie

  Dornoch (North)

  193

  Tannach Hill

  Dornoch (North)

  120

  Skipness

  Kintyre (Mid)

  387

  Carron

  Loch Awe (Mid)

  127

  Kinharvie

  Nithsdale (South)

  126

  Lamdoughty

  Ayrshire (South)

  259

  Whiteknowe/Badrochat

  Newton Stewart (South)

  388

  1 All the land was in Scotland. The locations shown are by Forestry Commission Forest Districts, with the Conservancy indicated in brackets.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will expand his response to "Forestry in Scotland" by the Countryside Commission and "Forestry in Scotland: Planning the Way Ahead" by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My letters to the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities provide a full response to the reports by the commission and the convention respectively. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92, the provision for value-added tax liability on new construction within the budgets given for capital expenditure on roads by his Department and the local authorities in Scotland in chapter 17 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The relevant provision for trunk roads is £13·9 million, £19 million and £20·7 million respectively for the years in question. Allocations to local authorities for capital expenditure on road construction do not include provision for VAT liabilities. Local authorities are able to reclaim VAT where supply is not for the purpose of business activities.

  Drinking Water (Contamination)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all water supplies in Scotland that are in breach of the EEC directive on water quality in respect of safety limits in lead in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The water supplies concerned are listed in the table. Improvement work is in hand for all these supplies and in most cases will be completed by the end of this year. Of the remaining 17 supplies, all in Strathclyde and Lothian regions, 15 are expected to comply with the EC limit not later than mid-1991 and two major schemes, of which lead remedial work is only a part, will extend into 1992.

  Authority and Supply

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Areeming (Springholm)

  Auchneel (Stranraer)

  661

  Black Esk (Annandale/Eskdale)

  Carsphairn

  Creet own

  Euchan (Kirkconnel)

  Glengap (Kirkcudbright, Gatehouse)

  Kettleton (Central Nithsdale)

  Killyl our (Dumfries)

  Landheads (Annan)

  Langholm

  Lochfoot

  Lochinvar (Castle Douglas, Dalbeattie)

  Loch Roan (Castle Douglas)

  Millburn (Palnure)

  Moffat

  New Abbey (South-West Nithsdale)

  Newton Stewart

  Penwhirn (Wigtown District)

  Sanquhar

  Wanlockhead

  Winterhope (South-East Annandale, Eskdale)

  Grampian Region

  Aberlour, Dufftown, Tomintoul

  Black Hills (Lossiemouth)

  Craigmill (Forres)

  Cullen

  Forehill (Peterhead, St. Fergus)

  Fortrie (Macduff, Gardenstown)

  Herricks (Keith)

  Hillhead (Fraserburgh) Newbigging (Inverurie)

  Terpersie (Strathdon, Strathbogie)

  Upper Deeside (Aboyne, Ballater)

  Wrack (Banff)

  Highland Region

  Ardnamurchan

  Calder and Hoy (Thurso)

  Corpach/Caol

  Fort William

  Helmsdale

  North Speyside

  Oldtown (Inverness)

  South Speyside

  Lothian Region

  Fairmilehead/Alnwickhill

  (parts of Edinburgh)

  Strathclyde Region

  Afton (Cumnock and Doon Valley)

  Bradan (North Ayrshire)

  Camphill (North Ayrshire, Paisley)

  Camps (parts of Clydesdale, Hamilton, Motherwell districts)

  Garshake (Dumbarton)

  Loch Ascog (Rothesay)

  Loch Eck (Dunoon area)

  Loch Lomond (hulk) (North Glasgow)

  Loch Lomond (Dumbarton, Leven)

  Loch Sloy (Arrochar, Gareloch)

  Luss

  Millglen (Ardrossan)

  Muirdykes (Paisley, Johnstone, etc.)

  Overton (Leven)

  Picketlaw (Eaglesham, Clarkston)

  South Moorhouse (Newton Mearns, Giffnock, etc)

  Spallander (Kyle and Carrick)

  Tayside Region

  Aberfeldy

  Acharn

  Alyth

  Burnhead (Blairgowrie)

  Camserney

  Clash (Kirriemuir)

  Grandtully

  Kenmore

  Kinloch Rannoch

  Lintrathen (Coupar Angus)

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in implementing section 5 of 662
  the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, in respect of its obligation to place duties upon educational authorities and social services authorities to identify, assess and provide for the needs of people with mental handicaps at the time that they move out of full-time education; and what arrangements have been made to ensure that these facilities are being monitored in respect of their implementation in terms of quality of life.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 5 does not apply in Scotland. The relevant provision is section 13 which came into operation on 1 February 1988. We are currently considering appropriate monitoring arrangements.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and whether he will meet the cost implications required to appoint authorised representatives for all people with mental handicaps in connection with the provision of services and the right to obtain relevant information to facilitate an informed choice of a selection of appropriate support services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A date for implementing sections 1 and 2 has not yet been set. The cost implications of those provisions will be the subject of consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interests.

  Legall Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish legal aid board will be authorised to pay legal aid accounts in cases where prior to the commencement of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations, work carried out by the solicitor had the effect of bringing proceedings to an end before a full section 1 application was determined.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of a determination under section 4(2)(c) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, as amended, dated 29 July 1988, the Scottish legal aid board may make payments under specified conditions in cases where full civil legal aid is not made available.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, which date will be fixed by the Scottish legal aid board as the date of notification by a solicitor that the £60 limit has been exceeded, under the terms of the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Prospective Cost (No. 3) Regulations, 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The date of the solicitor's letter notifying the Scottish legal aid board that the £60 limit has been exceeded.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is given concerning any provisions there are for payment in full of legal aid to solicitors, under the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) and (No. 3) Regulations 1988, where work is undertaken in good faith for a client who was believed to be eligible for legal aid; and from whom it was agreed to accept payment by instalments towards his estimated legal aid contribution, on which the client subsequently defaults after legal aid has been refused.
  663
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In a letter to the profession dated 5 August 1988, and in the winter 1988 edition of its quarterly journal The Recorder, the Scottish legal aid board has advised solicitors to make such arrangements with clients as will protect them against the possibility of a refusal by the client to pay, noting that this is ultimately a matter between solicitor and client.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to increase the number of management agreements negotiated to date in environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland and improve their attractiveness to farmers and crofter within environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has published explanatory leaflets and held public meetings in each of the designated areas in Scotland to publicise the scheme. Local officers of the Department and Scottish agricultural college advisory staff are available to provide information and advice to farmers or crofters in the designated areas.

  Sports Medicine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of health expenditure is devoted to sports medicine; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will state the number of consultants engaged in sports medicine and the health boards by whom they are employed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to expand the practice of sports medicine within the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of medical services for the treatment of injuries whether sporting or otherwise is for individual health boards.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the main education initiatives which the Government have undertaken in Scotland since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A list, with short descriptions, of the main initiatives undertaken in Scottish education since 1979 follows:

  1. Standard Grade—Introduction to schools of new courses and examinations for age 14–16 that give every pupil credit for his or her achievements.

  2. Action Plan—A new deal in education and training for age 16+, bringing pre-vocational and vocational training up to date and fitting it to the needs of employers and individuals.

  3. Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) —A national programme to provide within the school curriculum for the practical and applied skills and attitudes needed in employment in the years ahead.

  4. Industry' Education Initiative—A national measure to increase links between schools and employers so that each has a better understanding of the others needs and requirements.

  5. Curriculum and Assessment—A review of the primary and early secondary curriculum and of assessment
  664
  procedures, to introduce better quality and greater consistency in the delivery of education, and make the good practice of some the standard for all.

  6. Modern Languages—Planned extension of competence in a modern European language to all pupils.

  7. Special Educational Needs—More effective procedures to identify, record and make suitable provision for pupils with severe handicap. 1981 Act.

  8. Pupils with Learning Difficulties—Development of better provision and support for those pupils.

  9. Information Technology—Support for provision of computers in all schools.

  10. Equipment for Science and Technology—Support for extension and modernisation of equipment in schools.

  11. Research—Research projects to support all major Government initiatives.

  12. Publication of Inspection Reports on Schools—Reports produced on all schools which have been subjected to a full inspection, for information to parents and exemplification of good practice.

  13. Training for Teachers

  13.1 All graduate entry to teaching announced in 1983. New degree course for primary teaching introduced in 1984; degrees for music and technology teaching in 1987.

  13.2 Revised and extended postgraduate courses with more emphasis on school experience and the integration of theory and practice (primary-1986, secondary-1987).

  13.3 Better delivery of in-service training by:

  the introduction in 1984 of a specific grant to education authorities to encourage priority to nationally important topics; indentification of priority areas through the creation of the Scottish Council for Staff Development in Education (SCOSDE) in 1987; and

  an enabling clause in the self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Bill currently before Parliament to introduce the appraisal of teachers' performance.

  14. Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service—Revision through agreement of teachers' pay and conditions of service in 1987, which made specific provision for

  14.1 the appointment of a new grade of senior teacher;

  14.2 time away from the classroom for parents' evenings;

  14.3 time for in-service training and other forms of professional development (PAT).

  15. Staff Development

  15.1 A major management training programme for headteachers has been launched.

  15.2 More training support is planned for probationer teachers.

  15.3 Views have been invited on a voucher scheme to stimulate teachers' personal professional development.

  16. Parental Choice—Introduction of a right for parents to choose their children's school. More than 13 per cent. of pupils at P1 stage are now the subject of a placing request, more than 10 per cent. of pupils at S1. More than 90 per cent. of placing requests are granted.

  17. Parental Involvement in Schools—Establishment of School Boards in every local authority school in Scotland by October 1989; membership to include parents, teachers and co-opted members. This will give parents an effective voice in their children's education and in the management of schools.

  18. Assisted Places Scheme—The Assisted Places Scheme, introduced in 1981, has widened the scope for exercise of choice by parents and the range of educational opportunity for children, by enabling parents of modest income to send their children to independent fee-paying schools if they so prefer. The Scheme assists 2,670 pupils, at 41 schools. From 1989–90 the Scheme will be extended to include pupils in the later stages of preparatory schools. The total number of pupils benefiting is expected to rise to about 3,000 by 1991–92.

  19. Technology Academies—An initiative involving private sector sponsorship to extend the scope for choice, to widen the range and diversity of schools available and to raise standards and expectations of pupils, parents and teachers.

  665

  20. Parent Involvement in Discipline—Regulations made in 1982 require parents to be involved in decisions about disciplinary behaviour at a very early stage where exclusion from a school is in prospect. The closer involvement of parents with schools through School Boards will also encourage the partnership between home and school in maintaining good standards of behaviour.

  21. Abolition of Corporal Punishment—Since 1987 corporal punishment has been abolished as a sanction for pupils whose education is directly provided in whole or in part from public funds.

  22. Playground Supervision—Some £4 million has been provided in the Revenue Support Grant settlement in 1989–90, to enable education authorities to provide for proper playground supervision at lunchtimes.

  23. Educational Expenditure—Between 1979–80 and 1987–88 net current expenditure per pupil by local authorities on schools increased in real terms by 39 per cent. (now £1,587 per pupil compared with £1,143 in 1979–80 at 1987–88 prices).

  Burrell Gallery
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the cost of building the Burrell gallery in Glasgow was met by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have today authorised the payment of £595,662 in full and final settlement of the Government's grant contribution towards the cost of building the gallery. This will make the final total of Government grant £9,426,160. A total of £1,742,336 was contributed by the Burrell fund and the balance of just under 50 per cent. was met by Glasgow district council.

  Investment Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the will give the total number of applicants(a) received and (b) approved for investment grants from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988; what was the total amount of expenditure involved; and what the total estimated expenditure planned for that period;

  (2) if he will give the total number of applicants (a) received and (b) approved for innovation grants, from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988; the total amount of expenditure involved and the total estimated expenditure involved and (c) the total estimated expenditure planned for that period.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, Thursday 16 March 1989]: The information requested is shown for the period 1 April to 31 December.

  Regional Enterprise grants

  Number

  (ii) Investment grants

  Number of applications received

  247

  Number of applications approved

  125

  Value of applications approved

  £772·7 thousand

  (ii) Innovation grants

  Number of applications received

  66

  Number of applications approved

  21

  Value of applications approved

  £481·5 thousand

  The present provision for regional enterprise grants, which covers both investment and innovation grants, for the financial year 1988–89 is £1·6 million.
  666

  Development Corporation Houses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses from development corporation stock have been sold in each of the new towns since vesting day, expressed as a percentage of the total stock.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply of 23 January, 1989.]: The information, as amended, is set out in the table.

  Total stock

  Total sales

  Percentage sales

  East Kilbride1

  22,585

  9,794

  43·4

  Glenrothes1

  12,095

  5,216

  43·13

  Cumbernauld1

  14,206

  6,857

  48·3

  Livingston2

  12,120

  2,780

  22·9

  Irvine1

  5,264

  1,016

  19·3

  1 As at 31 December 1988.

  2 As at 30 September 1988.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of pharmaceutical imports from Greece in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have been asked to reply.

  Imports of medicinal and pharmaceutical products from Greece in 1987 and 1988 were £6·7 million and £11·8 million respectively.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give the total national United Kingdorn expenditure on health care provision, including both public and private sector provision, but excluding any double counting, in money terms, for the latest 10 financial years for which figures are available; and whether this includes the voluntary sector;

  (2) if he will give the national United Kingdom expenditure on private sector health care provision in money terms, for the latest 10 financial years for which figures are available; and whether this includes the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: The following table shows annual United Kingdom public and private health care expenditure in the period 1979 to 1988. The figures are derived from the United Kingdom national accounts prepared by the Central Statistical Office and do not double-count expenditures. The voluntary sector is not separately identified in the national accounts.

  Expenditure on health care in the United Kingdom

  £ billion

  Year

  Net public expenditure

  Private expenditure

  1979

  8·7

  1·1

  1980

  11·9

  1·3

  1981

  13·7

  1·7

  1982

  14·5

  2·0

  1983

  16·3

  2·3

  1984

  17·2

  2·5

  1985

  18·4

  2·8

  1986

  20·0

  3·0

  1987

  22·0

  3·3

  1988

  23·8

  3·8

  South Cumbria District Health Authority
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes in revenue have been made in South Cumbria district health authority since 30 September 1982 in cash, real terms and percentages.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health hazards presented by those exhaust emissions of vehicles which are capable of being reduced or eliminated by catalytic converters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The effects of the relevant primary pollutants, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, and of secondary pollutants, notably ozone formed by subsequent reactions in the air, have been considered in consultation with United Kingdom experts and through the World Health Organisation. Their assessment is that there is no evidence that current environmental concentrations in the United Kingdom arising from traffic sources present health hazards.

  Social Workers (Training)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has plans for his Department to make a direct contribution to the improvement of the training of social workers dealing with mentally disordered people;

  (2) whether he has had discussions with local authority associations and directors of social services with a view to improving the training and supervision of social workers dealing with mentally disordered people.

  Mr. Mellor
  Social work training is essentially a matter for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. We have had no discussions with the local authority associations or directors of social services about training for those social workers dealing with the mentally ill.

  General Practice Finance Corporation Ltd.
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete the sale of the General Practice Finance Corporation Ltd.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to announce that I have accepted an offer of £145 million from Norwich Union Life Insurance Society for the acquisition of all the ordinary share capital of the General Practice Finance Corporation Ltd., and the repayment of the company's indebtedness to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The transaction is being completed this morning.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances from the London ambulance service were deployed at the Clapham rail crash; how many St. John ambulance brigade vehicles were brought into use as a result; and if any non-London ambulances were used in London on the day in question.

  Mr. Freeman
  The LAS deployed 35 ambulances, 11 large sitting case vehicles and three small sitting case 668
  vehicles. A further seven vehicles attended the scene from the LAS training school, as well as the emergency control vehicle. In addition, six ambulances from the Surrey ambulance service with support from its control unit and three vehicles from their training school attended. These were the only non-London ambulances used in London on that day. No St. John ambulances were used as a result of the incident.

  Sports Medicine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of consultants engaged in sports medicine in England and Wales and the health authorities by which they are employed.

  Mr. Mellor
  Sports medicine as such is not a recognised medical speciality so no such figures are available.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of health expenditure in England and Wales is devoted to sports medicine; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to expand the practice of sports medicine within the National Health Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Treatment for injuries sustained as a result of sport are not separately costed. Some sports injuries will be treated by general practitioners, and others in accident and emergency departments or, for example, hospital orthopaedic departments. This is a matter for clinical judgment by the responsible doctor.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each health district and health region in England and Wales the size of the waiting list on 30 September 1988, the percentage increase or decrease since 31 March 1988, and the national rank order of the district by size of waiting list.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is in the Library. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the population of England and Wales in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimates of resident population for England and Wales at mid-1986 and mid-1987 are 50,075,000 and 50,243,000 respectively. An estimate for mid-1988 will be available shortly.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales the number of electors on the register for each of 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures requested for 1988–89 have been published in "Electroal Statistics, 1988" (Series EL no. 15), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Similar figures for 1989–90 are still being assembled centrally: they will be published in "Electoral Statistics, 1989" (Series EL no. 16) at the end of May.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental hospitals have been closed in the past year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is routinely collected but not yet available for 1988. I will place a list in the Library in the near future.

  Children (Secure Accommodation)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged under 16 years are detained in Her Majesty's prisons; and when he expects to provide suitable secure accommodation.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provisional figures for 31 December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, show there were 24 untried males aged 15 remanded to prison department establishments.

  The provision of appropriate alternative facilities including secure accommodation is the statutory responsibility of local authorities. The Department has powers to make grant aid available to meet the capital cost of providing secure accommodation, and is always prepared to consider any application which might be made by local authorities to increase the stock of such facilities.

  Applications from a number of authorities are actively under consideration for the provision of new or extended secure facilities and approval has already been given to build two new secure units in Birmingham and Humberside, which will provide a further 16 secure places.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the arrangements for opting for trust status for hospitals will affect the status and appointment of hospital chaplains.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Hospital chaplains who transfer from health authority employment will retain their existing contracts and rights. For the future, NHS hospital trusts will be free to appoint chaplains on such conditions as they may determine.

  General Practitioners (Contract)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when formal negotiations on the proposed new contract for general practitioners began; how many meetings have taken place between the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association negotiators and his officials; how many hours of negotiation have taken place; how many departmental papers have been sent to the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association negotiators in the context of the negotiations: and how many papers have been received by his officials from the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association in response;

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Formal negotiations on the proposed new contract for general practitioners began in March 1988. They followed on from the Green Paper "Primary Health Care—an agenda for discussion" published in 1986 and the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" published in 1987. Since March 1988 there have 670
  been 18 meetings between the general medical services committee negotiators and my officials and some 100 hours of negotiations. Thirty-three papers from my Department and five from the GMSC have been considered at negotiating meetings.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times he has met the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association to discuss the proposed new contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have had three meetings with the general medical services committee to discuss the proposed new contract for general practitioners on 8 September 1988, 9 February 1989 and 20 March 1989. The first two meetings were to review progress on the continuing discussions on the new contract and covered the policy aims of the revised contract very fully. The last meeting was a three-hour discussion of the eight detailed points that the GMSC wished to put to me and its requests for outstanding detailed information.

  The GMSC has always agreed with me that revised regulations and a new statement of fees and allowances are required and should take effect in April 1990. We have agreed a number of points of the new contract including some originally proposed by the GMSC. I have stressed at all three meetings that I believe that we should make progress in the discussions because of the need to give GPs as much notice as possible of the new terms and conditions so that they can adjust their practices to prepare for them.

  I explained to the GMSC at our last meeting that I would reflect on the detailed submissions it put to me and respond to them in the draft regulations and statement that I will now put to it. Further consultation will take place on the terms of the draft regulations and statement.

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet Age Concern to discuss the rapid increase in the number of private residential homes and its relevance to the report by Sir Roy Griffiths on community care.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: We are currently giving active consideration to the future organisation and management of community care following Sir Roy Griffiths' report. We hope to bring forward our proposals soon and will consider requests for meetings from organisations involved in community care at that stage.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting lists for hearing aids in the Leicester health authority; and what action the Government propose to take to cut them.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: Provision of local health services is a matter for the relevant district health authority, in this case Leicestershire. The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of the authority for the information he seeks.

  No-fault Compensation
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the British Medical
  671
  Association concerning the introduction of a partial no-fault compensation system for high risk medical practitioners.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: We have had no such discussions.

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by each district health authority area the overall levels of spending per head of population;

  (2) if he will list by each district health authority area the levels of spending per head of population by each identifiable cost centre.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 December 1988]: District based figures of total revenue expenditure per head of resident population for 1987–88 are shown in the table.

  For information on average treatment costs by type of hospital for health regions and England as a whole I refer the hon. Member to the Department's annual publication "Health Services Costing Returns" (the latest being for 1986–87)—copies of which are held in the Library.

  District health authorities

  Total revenue expenditure per resident £ cash1987–88

  Northern region

  Hartlepool

  233

  North Tees

  181

  South Tees

  253

  East Cumbria

  229

  South Cumbria

  169

  West Cumbria

  195

  Darlington

  253

  Durham

  149

  North West Durham

  215

  South West Durham

  223

  Northumberland

  220

  Gateshead

  168

  Newcastle

  514

  North Tyneside

  134

  South Tyneside

  161

  Sunderland

  223

  Districts total

  229

  Yorkshire region

  Hull

  236

  East Yorkshire

  212

  Grimsby

  207

  Scunthorpe

  151

  Northallerton

  139

  York

  225

  Scarborough

  167

  Harrogate

  211

  Bradford

  214

  Airedale

  191

  Calderdale

  187

  Huddersfield

  224

  Dewsbury

  162

  Leeds Western

  275

  Leeds Eastern

  263

  Wakefield

  339

  Pontefract

  172

  Districts total

  218

  Trent region

  North Derbyshire

  143

  South Derbyshire

  201

  Leicestershire

  196

  North Lincolnshire

  228

  672

  District health authorities

  Total revenue expenditure per resident £ cash 1987–88

  South Lincolnshire

  172

  Bassetlaw

  167

  Central Nottinghamshire

  196

  Nottingham

  254

  Barnsley

  178

  Doncaster

  191

  Rotherham

  170

  Sheffield

  322

  Districts total

  212

  East Anglian Region

  Cambridge

  282

  Peterborough

  202

  West Suffolk

  177

  East Suffolk

  206

  Norwich

  219

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  184

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  166

  Huntingdon

  189

  Districts Total

  209

  North West Thames Region

  North Bedfordshire

  159

  South Bedfordshire

  171

  North Hertfordshire

  149

  East Hertfordshire

  118

  North West Hertfordshire

  283

  South West Hertfordshire

  126

  Barnet

  263

  Harrow

  218

  Hillingdon

  282

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  211

  Ealing

  158

  Brent

  220

  Paddington

  599

  Riverside

  514

  Districts Total

  236

  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  185

  Mid Essex

  199

  North East Essex

  202

  West Essex

  175

  Southend

  161

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  188

  Hampstead

  592

  Bloomsbury

  1,076

  Islington

  334

  City and Hackney

  483

  Newham

  227

  Tower Hamlets

  485

  Enfield

  166

  Haringey

  270

  Redbridge

  193

  Waltham Forest

  288

  Districts Total

  273

  South East Thames

  Brighton

  218

  Eastbourne

  203

  Hastings

  202

  South East Kent

  158

  Canterbury and Thanet

  217

  Dartford and Gravesham

  229

  Maidstone

  208

  Medway

  164

  Tunbridge Wells

  260

  Bexley

  190

  Greenwich

  300

  Bromley

  205

  West Lambeth

  568

  673

  District health authorities

  Total revenue expenditure per resident £ cash 1987–88

  Camberwell

  374

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  386

  Districts Total

  251

  South West Thames

  North West Surrey

  217

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  134

  South West Surrey

  271

  Mid Surrey

  276

  East Surrey

  288

  Chichester

  199

  Mid Downs

  179

  Worthing

  162

  Croydon

  209

  Kingston and Esher

  258

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  176

  Wandsworth

  543

  Merton and Sutton

  227

  Districts Total

  231

  Wessex Region

  East Dorset

  183

  West Dorset

  199

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  172

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  262

  Winchester

  198

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  199

  Salisbury

  278

  Swindon

  201

  Bath

  190

  Isle of Wight

  207

  Districts Total

  203

  Oxford Region

  East Berkshire

  171

  West Berkshire

  173

  Aylesbury Vale

  315

  Wycombe

  126

  Milton Keynes

  143

  Kettering

  148

  Northampton

  205

  Oxfordshire

  229

  Districts Total

  187

  South Western Region

  Bristol and Weston

  279

  Frenchay

  255

  Southmead

  221

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  181

  Exeter

  254

  North Devon

  199

  Plymouth

  241

  Torbay

  190

  Cheltenham

  165

  Gloucester

  208

  Somerset

  192

  Districts Total

  218

  West Midlands region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  177

  Herefordshire

  192

  Kidderminster

  273

  Worcester

  195

  Shropshire

  185

  Mid Staffordshire

  153

  North Staffordshire

  223

  South East Staffordshire

  178

  Rugby

  160

  North Warwickshire

  213

  South Warwickshire

  215

  674

  District health authorities

  Total revenue expenditure per resident £ cash 1987–88

  Central Birmingham

  521

  East Birmingham

  211

  North Birmingham

  223

  South Birmingham

  283

  West Birmingham

  322

  Coventry

  220

  Dudley

  190

  Sandwell

  136

  Solihull

  155

  Walsall

  174

  Wolverhampton

  228

  District Total

  214

  Mersey region

  Chester

  283

  Crewe

  171

  Halton

  128

  Macclesfield

  208

  Warrington

  265

  Liverpool

  325

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  182

  Southport and Formby

  234

  South Sefton

  321

  Wirral

  196

  Districts Total

  237

  North Western region

  Lancaster

  353

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  186

  Preston

  582

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  181

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  300

  West Lancashire

  228

  Chorley and South Ribble

  79

  Bolton

  181

  Bury

  152

  North Manchester

  434

  Central Manchester

  562

  South Manchester

  518

  Oldham

  165

  Rochdale

  143

  Salford

  363

  Stockport

  176

  Tameside and Glossop

  148

  Trafford

  146

  Wigan

  172

  District Total

  241

  Sources:

  (a) 1987–88 annual accounts of district health authorities.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of resident population:–1987 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. District capital expenditure and all expenditure incurred by regional health authorities on behalf of their regions as a whole is excluded.

  2. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded: such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular districts.

  3. Significant variations in per capita expenditure figures at district level arise principally because:

  i. people travel across district boundaries for treatment and sub-regional resource allocations reflect the pattern of service provision locally.

  ii. the population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for the difference in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular population.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Payments
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether a disabled person, in receipt of a disablement pension or the relevant disability allowances, is able to transfer such payment to another country, should that person decide to reside in another country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Disablement pension is payable to a person who resides abroad. Reduced earnings allowance is generally payable only during temporary absences but is payable for permanent absence if the disabled person goes to a country with which we have a social security agreement which provides for this or goes to another EC country (provided he is a national of an EC country, or a stateless person or refugee living there). Attendance allowance and mobility allowance are payable during temporary absence of up to six months, or temporary absence for the specific purpose of being treated for an incapacity or a disabling condition which began before leaving Great Britain.

  Severe disablement allowance (SDA) is payable during temporary absence for the specific purpose of being treated for an incapacity which began before leaving Great Britain; or during temporary absence if the person had been continuously incapable of work for six months when the absence began and remains continuously so incapable. However, if the disabled person is going to another EC country and is helped by the EC regulations on social security for migrant workers he will be able to continue to receive SDA even if he does not meet the above rules.

  Community Charge Benefits Regulations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received from computer companies on the timetable for the preparation of the community charge benefits regulations;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the preparation of the community charge benefits regulations; and when he expects that they will be laid before the House.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No representations have been received from computer companies about the timetable for preparing the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989. Copies of the draft regulations were sent on 16 March to the Social Security Advisory Committee and to the local authority associations in accordance with the consultation requirements set out in section 61 of the Social Security Act 1986. The regulations will be laid before the House once the Social Security Bill has been enacted. In order to assist local authorities and the computer companies in their preparation for the introduction of the community charge benefits scheme, it is intended to send copies of the draft regulations to each authority as soon as possible after the completion of the consultation process.

  Disablement Income Group
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration his Department has given to the report published by the Disablement Income Group entitled, "Am I Entitled? Problems With The Take 676
  Up And Administration Of Attendance And Mobility Allowance"; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department co-operated with this study, and commented on a draft of the report but we have not yet had an opportunity to consider the final version. We shall take careful account of the findings, together with the other recent Disablement Income Group report, "Being Disabled Costs More Than They Said," in our consideration of the OPCS findings.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate as to how much of the funds allocated to the social fund will have been unspent by the end of the 1988–89 financial year, broken down into (i) budgeting loans, (ii) crisis loans, and (iii) community care grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Based on expenditure to the end of February 1989 the gross underspend on the loans budget at the end of the 1988–89 financial year is estimated at £18 million. The estimated underspend on the grants budget is £20 million. Crisis loans and budgeting loans are paid from a single loans budget.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce the revised social fund allocation for the office at Chatham following the transfer to that office of responsiility for the area covered by Rochester area office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 March 1989 the office at Rochester will close and merge with the office at Chatham on 1 April 1989. Accordingly the social fund allocation for Chatham has been adjusted. The revised allocation is:

  £

  Grants budget

  159,467

  Loans budget

  385,634

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Information is not available in the form required because records are held on a combined basis with the Department of Health.

  Information for both Departments is as follows:

  Grade

  Total staff

  Female staff

  1Ethic minority staff

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  12

  2

  16·7

  —

  —

  3

  39

  6

  15·4

  —

  —

  4

  29

  6

  20·7

  1

  3·4

  5

  268

  75

  28·0

  14

  5·2

  6

  373

  58

  15·5

  34

  9·1

  7

  1,049

  173

  16·5

  13

  1·2

  TOTAL

  1,773

  320

  18·0

  62

  3·5

  1 Ethnic minorities figures are based on questionnaires voluntarily completed by staff (75 per cent. response rate to date).

ENERGY

  Drilling Rigs
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of his Department's instructions to operators, following the blowout on the Ocean Odyssey, to suspend drilling using flexible jumper hoses at high pressure until an alternative acceptable to his Department can be found, he will now present an interim report on the scope and methods of his Department's review and give an estimate of the completion date and if he will also release details of the number of well drilling operations which are prevented from proceeding until his Department's review is satisfactorily completed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A full report of my Department's investigation into the Ocean Odyssey accident has been passed to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen. The report takes account of both operational practices and the failure of the flexible hoses. Work is continuing on assessing all applications for consent to drill high pressure wells in order to ensure that they can be carried out safely giving full regard to the lessons learnt from the accident. Ten well operations are being delayed. Consent will be given when my Department is satisfied that it is safe to proceed.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of his Department's order that the drilling rigs Neddril Trigon, Glomar Labrador, Glomar Moray Firth, KCA Sandpiper, Shelf Driller, Trident X and Trident XI, are to be dry docked for inspection and remedial work following the discovery of serious cracking in the spud cans of one rig, he will now release the report of these inspection findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Conclusions and recommendations will be published when the results of the inspections have been fully assessed.

  Oil and Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will provide a list of all installations of submarine emergency shutdown valves in oil and gas pipelines which have been or are being, or are planned to be carried out since the Piper Alpha disaster;

  (2) how many existing oil and gas pipelines were fitted with submarine emergency shutdown valves prior to the Piper Alpha disaster; and what are their locations;

  (3) if he will provide a list of all oil and gas pipelines with an operating pressure in excess of 600 lb per sq in and a diameter of 6 in or greater which do not contain submarine emergency shutdown valves; and if he will also provide a list of the production platforms, onshore reception terminals and other facilities which are connected to these pipelines.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are approximately 124 offshore oil and gas pipelines with an operating pressure in excess of 600 pounds per sq in and a diameter of 6 in or greater that do not have sub-sea emergency shut down valves fitted. Full details of these have been placed in the Library.

  Six pipelines had sub-sea emergency shut down valves fitted prior to the Piper Alpha accident, located adjacent to the Brent Alpha, Fulmar, Murchison, Balmoral, Buchan
  678
  and Argyll platforms. It was also intended that two valves would be installed on the new pipeline, yet to be commissioned, in the Ivanhoe/Rob Roy field.

  Following the Piper Alpha accident and in response to a letter from my director of safety asking for pipeline isolation arrangements to be reviewed, the industry has to date made proposals for the installation of an additional 26 sub-sea pipeline isolation systems, seven of which have already been installed. A list of these has also been placed in the Library. My Department is giving urgent consideration to the proposals from operators and I expect the completion of the review work to identify the need for additional systems.

  These systems together with the mandatory offshore installation isolation systems, the proposals for which were issued for consultation this week, will provide a further step to greater safety offshore.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why the list of major changes to the Piper Alpha platform in annex B to the technical investigation interim report does not mention the tie-in of the Tartan field gas export pipeline to the Piper platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The tie-in of the Tartan field gas export pipeline to the Piper Alpha installation was outside the scope of annex B of the technical investigation interim report but is covered elsewhere in the report.

  Electricity (Cost)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the price which would be charged for electricity if the cost of fuel for generation provided the same proportion of that price as it did three years ago.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This a matter for the electricity supply industry. I will ask the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Water Quality
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer of 13 March, he will list the criteria of the European Community directive on drinking water which the supply in his Department's head office failed to meet in 1988.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The responsibility for monitoring the quality of drinking water in my Department's headquarters building rests with the Property Services Agency.

  I am advised that the criteria of the European Community directive on drinking water for the permitted maximum admissible levels which the supply in my Department's head office failed to meet in 1988 are:

  Permitted maximum admissible levels

  Sulphate

  250mg/litre

  Fluoride

  1500ug/litre

  Potassium

  12mg/litre

  Sodium

  175mg/litre

  Magnesium

  50mg/litre

  Iron

  50ug/litre

  Manganese

  50ug/litre

  Nickel

  50ug/litre

  Conductivity

  1500us/cm

  Turbidity

  4NTU

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the liaison arrangements between his Department and the international safeguards authorities at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and Euratom in Luxembourg over the transport and transfer of nuclear materials to and from the Atomic Weapons Establishment to the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Commission regulation (Euratom) 3227/76 and the United Kingdom/Euratom/ IAEA safeguards agreement make provision for the receipt from and shipment to a facility not under safeguards.

  Sellafield (Safeguards)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if full facility attachments and particular safeguards provisions are now in force for all facilities at Sellafield containing safeguardable nuclear materials; and what has been the cost of implementation of a comprehensive safeguards regime for Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The particular safeguards for provisions for facilities at BNFL Sellafield are currently under discussion and to date four have been brought into force. Facility attachments for certain facilities which the IAEA inspect are also being negotiated.

  The costs of meeting safeguards requirements cannot be separately identified among the general running costs of the facilities concerned. The costs incurred by Euratom and the IAEA are a matter for the authorities concerned.

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

British Rail: Manning
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of British Rail employees in January 1985 and January 1989 respectively, and how many of these in each case were maintenance staff.
The Parliamentry Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, British Rail informs me that the total number of group employees was 181,782 in January 1985 and 148,316 in January 1989. Excluding employees in subsidiaries such as BREL, the numbers of rail employees were 144,261 and 127,686, a reduction of 11·5 per cent. over the period. It is not possible to give an exact figure for staff employed solely on maintenance duties, but the numbers employed by BR's three engineering divisions fell by 10·6 per cent. in the same period, from 60,936 in January 1985 to 54,497 in January 1989.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is there not a risk that the undermanning of our public transport services enforced by the Government's financial targets may become a threat not just to efficiency but to the safety of those services?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, British Rail makes safety its first and highest priority. It would not reduce staff numbers if that were compromised.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that for some years now concern has been expressed by the unions and others about excessive overtime that has to be worked by many members of British Rail staff? Is it not correct that, as reported recently, there is a 10 per cent. shortfall of drivers in Network SouthEast? As regards excessive overtime, while one cannot comment on the results of the three rail inquiries now taking place, is there not some concern at the evidence given of the excessive overtime that is worked and of the bad morale that exists due to the loss of skilled and technical staff, arising from low wages, to other concerns such as British Telecom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, overtime is a management matter for British Rail. It is obviously being carefully considered, as the noble Lord said, by the accident inquiries now taking place and it would be wrong to speculate on the inquiries' conclusions in advance. I understand that British Rail is considering a range of measures to encourage recruitment and the retention of staff in areas where there are shortages. That should help to reduce overtime.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the figures for British Rail compare with the manning of Continental railways, taking account of the proportions of rail track in use? Are British Rail's figures higher or lower for manning than that of our Continental competitors in France and particularly in Switzerland?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have figures to compare our manning levels with overseas operators. I shall endeavour to ascertain whether comparable figures are available and perhaps write to my noble friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister said that British Rail puts safety as a priority. If British Rail were to be nationalised, would not profit be given priority over safety?
Noble Lords: Privatised!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if British Rail were privatised and private companies returned to the railways, would it not be their duty to put profit before safety?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. There is little that I can add to my reply to the debate just before Christmas. If British Rail were to be privatised, safety would continue to be paramount. We would obviously have to ensure that is so through rigorous oversight by an independent inspectorate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, did my noble friend observe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the move of labour from a nationalised to a privatised industry? Has my noble friend any comment to make on that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned privatisation in his question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to British Telecom.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I apologise, my Lords. The noble Lord did mention British Telecom. However, as I said in my previous answer, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that privatisation would affect safety one way or the other.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is far from the subject of the original Question? I referred to the position where there is a transfer of technical staff to illustrate the bad morale that exists in sections of British Rail due to the low wages. That is the point that should be considered and I hope that the Minister agrees with that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already said that British Rail is considering a range of measures to encourage recruitment and the retention of staff.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the point put by my noble friend Lord Jay. Has the noble Lord noticed that as the Government have raised the financial targets the number of men employed on maintenance has fallen? There is a clear correlation between the two. As one graph has gone up the other has gone down.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the responsibility of British Rail is to run a safe, economic and efficient railway. It is obviously right that it should look at staff numbers in that context. I remind the noble Lord that although subsidy to the railway system has gone down—which must be a good thing—at the moment railway investment is at the highest level for 20 years.

Hospitals: Car Parking
2.43 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that adequate car parking space is being provided in new hospitals.
Lord Henley: My Lords, because of the growth in car ownership it is not always possible to provide on site parking for everyone travelling to hospital by car. Where parking has to be restricted it is usually to ensure that routes used by emergency traffic are kept free and that there is access for sitting case ambulances, disabled drivers and priority staff cars.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend has read the North Report which specifically says that our economy and society depend overwhelmingly on the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle depends on having somewhere to stop and let its passengers out. Does the noble Lord really think that for a hospital with 600 beds and with a staff of perhaps 600 to 1,000, 600 parking places are enough? One has to allow too for persons to go daily to hospital to get treatment and for visitors to patients whom I am sure the noble Lord would welcome as being good for morale. Has the Minister gone into that question? Can the noble Lord say whether there is a limitation of money or has a direction been given by the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, current guidance suggests a ratio of one parking place to every four beds increased to one to one where access is difficult due to the limited availability of public transport. Her Majesty's Government consider that this level of provision is sufficient to provide for patients who cannot visit hospital without a car; for example, the disabled, essential staff and some, but by no means all, visitors.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the imposition of parking charges at many hospitals is causing serious disruption and delay particularly to patients who are arriving? Is the Minister further aware that the situation at some hospitals is becoming very serious?
Lord Henley: My Lords, where a health authority wishes to provide more parking than is advised, it may decide to recover some of the cost by charging. Differential charges can be made according to the status of the user: staff, patients and visitors. Staff who are required to use their cars to perform their duties—for example, district nurses—are exempted from charges.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the site of the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital to replace Westminster, St. Stephen's and three other London hospitals, is so overcrowded that it will not provide adequate parking for patients and staff when one considers the size of the hospital?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in fact an underground car park is planned at the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital with 300 spaces. That will be a ratio of 2.2 to 1. That level of provision is considered acceptable given the limited space available and accessibility to the hospital by public transport.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is parking at the new Charing Cross Hospital good enough? Has the noble Lord tried recently to park his car anywhere near there? I ask my noble friend to consider very carefully the situation of a hospital in Dorset with a staff of 1,300 people all of whom will want parking space. All young nurses will have cars by the year 2000. Does the noble Lord agree that it will be very difficult to increase parking space after the hospital has been built? It is something that has to be laid out at the very beginning. Will the noble Lord consider whether he is grossly underestimating the national requirement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that I am. After the current redevelopment of a new mental illness unit at the Charing Cross Hospital, there will be a total of about 200 spaces, which will be a ratio of 3.3 to 1. There is very good public transport in that area. I agree with the noble Earl that it is very difficult to park in the area of the Charing Cross Hospital. I have done it myself.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he said that district nurses can park free of charge? The point is that they and parsons, for instance, have to get a chit from a porter to take to the ticket barrier when they depart. That causes an enormous amount of delay even when the parking is free of charge.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a matter for each individual hospital. I do not believe that it is a matter for the Government to issue directives on the day-to-day operation of hospital car parks. Each hospital will have a unit general manager who is capable of taking decisions on the allocation of car parking space and how it should be operated.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as regards some of the large car parks, if someone does not park absolutely correctly—I know of instances of disabled people to whom this applies—his car is wheel-clamped. When the clamp is put on or taken off it causes a great deal

683
of stress to other people as well. Can the Minister ask his right honourable friend if there is a possibility at the large car parks of having a car park superintendent to help and guide patients, staff and the disabled?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is again a matter for the hospitals. Clamping is available to hospitals as long as sufficient warning is given to the owner so that he knows that his car will be wheel-clamped and there is no damage to his car.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I recently had an appointment at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle? I was unable to find a parking place in the car park. I parked in a quiet street nearby and promptly got a ticket. So my visit cost me £12. It is a new hospital completed under this Government, with completely inadequate parking space. It is also built on a greenfield site. Will the Government look at this problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord acquired a parking ticket. He will know that in Newcastle the metro is available. I also know that the local authority in Newcastle is very anxious that people should use public transport if possible.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the metro is nowhere near the Freeman Hospital, which is built on a greenfield site outside the city. I gather that the noble Lord knows the area very well. He should be aware of that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know the Freeman Hospital, but I know Newcastle.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, who makes the decision in these matters? Is it the Secretary of State; is it the region; or is it the district? If noble Lords want information, they can get it from all these sources; and it will differ from what the noble Lord is saying at the present time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have stated, the Government have issued guidance, but it is then up to the district and the unit itself to decide how to run its own car parking.

Ozone Layer: Protection
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What international efforts to protect the ozone layer they expect to follow the London conference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference will give a political boost to the first meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol which will be held in Helsinki in May and will begin the process of reviewing the protocol. We hope that
684
at the second meeting of the parties in London next year tougher measures will be agreed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I congratulate the Government on the way in which the London conference has concentrated attention on this disturbing subject. What is the prospect of obtaining the necessary changes in China and in developing countries which are planning substantial increases in refrigeration units as a significant part of their domestic economic programmes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government agree that it is absolutely crucial that the larger developing countries should join the Montreal Protocol. We appreciate the desire of such countries to develop and enjoy the benefits of refrigeration. The London conference aimed to show that it will be possible to do so without using harmful CFCs. At the conference Brazil undertook to become a party, while China, the Asian countries and the members of the Gulf Co-operation Council said that they would also give it serious consideration. The Montreal Protocol includes provisions to help developing countries. The first meeting of the parties in Helsinki will examine how to take these proposals forward.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government agree with the delegates to the conference from China and India that as the developed countries have created almost all the emissions which have been attacking the ozone layer, it is the responsibility of the developed countries to assist the developing countries in paying the extra costs that will be necessary in order to develop refrigeration free of CFCs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware from my previous answer, the Montreal Protocol fully accepts that we must look after the interests of the less developed countries. As all noble Lords will know, if everyone in China acquired a refrigerator the prospective emissions would be a large multiple of anything produced in the United Kingdom. One of the objects of the conference was to get an extraordinary number of people and countries together in order to address the problems and to find out what those countries felt should be done to assist them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that, at least in theory, it is possible to manufacture devices which actually generate ozone? In addition to the restrictive measures, has consideration been given to the possibility of sending up such devices into the stratosphere to generate new ozone to replace the lost ozone?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that it is possible to create ozone, but there are some difficulties in getting up into the atmosphere to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in his answer to me the noble Lord said that one of the objects of the conference was to hear what the developing countries

685
want. China, India and other developing countries have stated quite clearly what they want. What is the Government's attitude to the demands made by China and India that the developing countries should be assisted in developing refrigeration free from CFCs? What is the Government's attitude? What will they do to help the developing countries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the first thing the Government did to help the developing countries was to call the conference and provide the initiative. The second point that must be faced up to is that at the moment we do not have available direct swaps for CFCs. We are looking, for instance, at technology transfers, but these are early days yet.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the damage to the ozone layer thought to be already affecting the climate? If so, is it responsible for the excellent winter which the south of England is enjoying? If the climate continues to improve, is there any possibility that we shall have better weather even in Scotland?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question, I doubt whether that would ever be possible.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, what discussions are taking place with producers of CFCs here and in other countries, particularly those that have subsidiaries in under-developed countries? Is there full co-operation with the industry so far as he is aware? I do not refer simply to our own producers.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the object of the exercise from this country's point of view is to eliminate eventually the production of CFCs. Notable companies are already engaged in a dialogue, but we still have a long way to go.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the indiscriminate cutting of the Amazon rain forest may be causing an ecological disaster of almost equal proportions to that caused by the depletion of the ozone layer? Do the Government have any plans for an international conference on this subject?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question I feel, is just a little wide of the one on the Order Paper.

CFC Gases and Refrigerators
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What kind of refrigerators use CFC gases and whether they cause the damage to the ozone layer when they are in use, or only when dicarded.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all domestic and commercial refrigerators and freezers currently
686
available use CFC gases, both as a coolant and in their insulation foam. Many commercial refrigerators and freezers now use HCF22, which is not controlled by the Montreal Protocol and which causes only 5 per cent. of the damage to the ozone layer caused by the equivalent weight of the more dangerous CFCs. CFC gas can leak from both the cooling system and from the insulation foam during the lifetime of the product, but the major source of emissions takes place once the applicance is scrapped.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, how does the man in the street, of whom I am one, know how to dispose of his old refrigerator? Is there a list of municipal councils which can do so without damaging the ozone layer?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, officials from the department are in discussion with industry representatives about this difficult question. The bulk of CFCs in refrigerators is in the insulating foam. No techniques for its safe disposal have yet been developed. The coolant, however, can be recovered and recycled in most cases. That is happening widely in commercial refrigeration. At least one retailer of domestic refrigerators has agreed to remove old applicances and extract the coolant for recycling.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me some idea of how much CFC is contained in a domestic refrigerator? If one could recover it, would this not be a large contribution to avoiding the emission of CFCs? Will he confirm that the larger refrigerators use ammonia, and that its use and the use of polyurethane and other foams could be a major consideration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not an expert on ammonia, but I can assure the noble Viscount that one of the features of the Montreal Protocol will be that the incentive for recycling will increase progressively with the reduction in production.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister gave a disappointing reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who asked for guidance about what the man in the street should do when disposing of a refrigerator. Can he give any guidance to those of us who have recently acquired Halon fire extinguishers—which I am told are many times worse than refrigerators in their potential to damage the atmosphere—as to how we are to dispose of them, as we bought them without knowing how dangerous they can be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that we are beginning to drift somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I can assure the noble Lord that certainly with regard 1 o future fire extinguishers, all encouragement will be given for them not to be used in, for example, training. Moreover, research is being carried out to see whether a replacement for those extinguishers can eventually be found.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, since it is established that the damage to the ozone layer by refrigeration gases occurs only when refrigerators are broken up, instead of advising people not to buy new fridges, would it not be more sensible to prohibit the breaking up of old ones? More specifically, can the noble Lord tell us what facilities exist in Britain for the recovery, and possible neutralisation, of those gases? Further, will he put information in the Library as to where those facilities exist in different parts of Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two parts to the problem. As I explained earlier, the incentive for the recovery of refrigerants themselves will increase; the difficulty is with the insulation, to which there is no answer at present. As a result there is a difficulty. That is why we are pushing so hard to eliminate the production of CFCs, because that is the fastest way of tackling the problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to the noble Lord's question, is it not the case, as I have read in the newspapers, that 2 million refrigerators and freezers are scrapped in this country every year? Is it not further the case that the West German Government reclaim freezers and refrigerators in those circumstances and make them safe? I ask why Her Majesty's Government cannot take similar steps.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most interested in what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said. But as regards insulation, which is half of the problem of CFCs, my understanding is that there is no satisfactory way at present of dealing with that.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, asked a most important question, which was whether the municipalities are being asked to help or co-operate in any way in the matter. The average man in the street today has a refrigerator; indeed, it has now become normal for everyone to have one. Therefore we cannot say, "Discard them; they might be dangerous". Where do we discard them, and how? Further, what are we all talking about?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, officials from the department will shortly be meeting representatives of local authorities to discuss their role in the efforts to reduce the emissions of CFCs.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. As is customary in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes to speak and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate.
688
In the debate tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes and in that tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, it should be seven minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Antarctic Minerals Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in Antarctica; to enable proceedings with respect to matters arising under the law of the British Antarctic Territory to be brought in England and Wales; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Brunei (Appeals) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the reference of appeals from the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Non-Elected Body Appointments: Policy
3.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to call attention to the growth of non-elected bodies; to the patronage system used by central government for their selection; and to the effect of such bodies upon local government; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I am conscious that there are a number of quite severe paradoxes in bringing such a Motion before

689
your Lordships' House. This is, after all, a House which consists almost entirely of people who owe their membership of it to patronage of one kind or another—in my case in the capacity of what is politely called "a working Peer" who was put on a list of names suggested by leaders of political parties—quite apart from the Honours Lists which are produced at New Year and on the Royal Birthday. I am quite conscious that I owe my presence in your Lordships' House to the patronage of the Labour Party. Indeed, a comparable arrangement with other parties exists for many other noble Lords who are present in the Chamber this afternoon.
In the case of noble Lords with hereditary titles, many were won originally for distinction on the battlefield or in other fields of public life; but a considerable number are rewards for past patronage in favour of their ancestors. There are noble Lords who find themselves here because they were part of Honours Lists at New Year or on the Queen's Birthday and there are others who find themselves here because of Dissolution Honours Lists. Many peerages are awarded for great distinction, but I think that most noble Lords will recognise that there is an element, at the very least, of the luck of the draw as to who is appointed to come to this Chamber. Indeed, there are many people of great distinction who are not Members of your Lordships' House, although they would adorn it considerably were they to be here. Therefore there is that paradox in the membership of this House when we are seeking to discuss the question of patronage in public life and the patronage of central government.
The second paradox I should like to mention comes to my attention through the Answers which Ministers have given in response to Starred Questions in recent weeks. I should like to say immediately that I recognise that when Ministers tell us that the number of quangos—that is, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations—has gone down by, I think, 25 percent. in recent years, I do not dispute that figure. The case for the Motion which I move today does not depend on the number of quangos which exist; what it depends on, and what gives it its force, are the scope and the power of those quangos and the scope and the power of central government in appointing people to organisations which have very much larger budgets and considerably more influence in public life than was the case 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I do not say that there was a watershed with the election of this Government in 1979. I consider that this is an issue which has affected public life all the time that I have been involved with it and, I have no doubt, for many years before that.
There is plenty of evidence that bodies appointed by central government have increased in their power and scope, and that there has been an increase in the ability and willingness of central government to use them for party political ends and in order to subvert the other estates of public life which in the past have been a countervailing force to the power of central government.
I have no figures more recent than April 1987, but in April 1987 no fewer than 1,643 quangos existed. Those organisations had 148,700 employees. They had budgets of £7.1 million, of which £5.7 million came from central government. In addition to the number of employees, almost 44,000 appointments were made directly by Ministers or on behalf of Ministers. It is worth nothing that of those apppointments at that time—I doubt whether the position is any worse now—81 per cent. were men and 19 per cent. only were women.
In a study in 1986, the Labour Research Department—again I apologise that there are no more recent figures and if any noble Lord has more recent figures I shall listen to them with great interest—made comparisons between the membership of 22 large quangos in 1985, which was the most recent year available to it, and in 1979, when a Labour Government had been in power for a sufficient length of time to enable them to have considerable influence on the membership of those public bodies. What it noted over that period of time was that there was a considerable increase in the politicisation of those bodies.
If we look at the 22 chairs of the public bodies concerned, in 1979 six of them were directly appointed from among the ranks of the Labour Party. I suppose that I should add to that figure my noble friend Lord Shepherd who, although his chairmanship of the National Bus Company came more from his wealth of experience in business matters and interests than his Labour Party concerns, nevertheless remains, I am delighted to say, a member of the Labour Party. One of them was an active Conservative and two more were directors of companies which made substantial contributions to the Conservative Party. One of them was a Liberal and 11 of the 22 had no discernible political affiliations of any kind.
In 1985, by contrast, no chairman of those public major bodies had any discernible Labour or Liberal connections. There were however 13 w ho were either active members of the Conservative Party or considerable contributors to Conservative Party funds, whether active in politics on a full-time basis or because of their activities in business.
There can be no doubt that the politicisation of those major public bodies has been on the increase. I do not deny for a moment that it existed under a Labour Government. I do not deny that that has been a tendency which has been noticeable for a considerable number of years; but it has been increasing, is increasing and in my view should diminish.
Much of the talk about the membership of public bodies is on the basis of the Prime Minister's favourite phrase that in order to be a member of a public body, "You have to be one of us". Many of the examples which are most talked about in public life are those which are difficult to refer to in the House because the people concerned are Members of your Lordships' House, and especially when so many are not present. It would be invidious of me to refer to individuals. I shall not go through the usual list of bodies which it is claimed, and I believe with some

691
justice, have been subject to political influence in appointments to their management.
It is now well accepted that 10 Downing Street has considerable influence on who is appointed to bodies such as the Arts Council, the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to many university appointments—I am not referring to regius professorships—and to the governorship and membership of the court of the Bank of England. All those are common knowledge, but it is not particularly relevant to the Motion or to propriety in the House to go into them in more detail.
However, I should like to refer to those public bodies which directly affect something which is close to my heart and which I know is close to the heart of a number of noble Lords—the public bodies that affect the local provision of services in our community, especially local government. That is why a reference has been made to the issue in the Motion.
Let us take, for example, the supervisory bodies for the finances of local authorities. It is generally agreed that the Audit Commission is doing an admirable job, not just under its present director, but it did so under its previous director. The fact remains however that the present director was a special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before becoming director of the Audit Commission; similarly, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland should have had, and did have originally, representations from the business community and central government and also from local authorities. There is after all only one local authority association in Scotland (the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities). During the whole time that that body has been established in Scotland only five CoSLA nominations have been accepted on to the commission. On the most recent occasion when there were vacancies, the Secretary of State for Scotland turned down all four CoSLA nominations.
Let us look briefly at the education world. The examples that I wish to give are not about local authority education, which, with the exception of the opting-out procedures, has not on the whole been greatly affected. Let us look at the city technology colleges which are intended to take away a significant part of local government from democratic control. Let us look at the Grant Maintained Schools Trust, which claims to have charitable objectives but somehow fails to have registered as a charity and is yet obtaining money from central government. Let us look, more importantly, at the Housing Corporation, which it is intended should take over from council housing—in other words, that it should become 10 times more powerful and yet have no democratic representation; at the residuary bodies which have taken over from the metropolitan county councils—others of my noble friends will refer to that matter—to the training and enterprise councils in local areas, which will take over the training functions that have been exercised by national bodies, which at least had trade union represen-
692
tation; and at urban development corporations, which take away planning powers from elected representatives. There are many more similar examples.
It is not just the people involved in those bodies who are of concern. It causes a great deal of disaffection in local areas where people have the feeling that their elected representatives, from whatever party, should have a say in what is happening in their area. It has two effects to which I wish to refer briefly. They are more important than the nature of the individuals or the way in which the patronage is exercised. First, it means a centralisation of policy-making. Whatever the intention, that is the effect. It means that policy-making and funding are taken away from local influence and local government and become the prerogative of Whitehall and of Ministers.
Secondly, there is a fragmentation of the service provision. If we look at the bodies that are responsible for housing in any community now, the responsibility is fragmented among housing associations supported by the Housing Corporation; in some areas the housing action trusts; in some areas still the local authorities and in some areas private landlords supported by the business expansion scheme. All that means that nobody concerned with community provision at the sharp end has any real idea of who runs what any more. There is no possibility for a co-ordinated approach to delivery of services. Although that is quite correctly subject to central government policy direction, the services ought not to be run on the ground in the local areas by the nominees of Whitehall, the nominees of Ministers or the nominees of any political party. That is the principal thrust behind our Motion this afternoon and that is why, my Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may say at once that I was never on an honours list at all; I came here not for services rendered but rather for services to be rendered. Whether or not I rendered them adequately is for your Lordships to decide, not for me.
In general I say at once that I much prefer services to be provided by local authorities. To that extent I find myself not in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I hope that he would have expected me to say so. We cannot ignore the fact that the numbers of quangos are fewer than they were. I remember that my first task on arriving at the DoE was to be asked by the then Secretary of State to conduct an examination of the numbers of local quangos pertaining to local government in order to see how many we could abolish. I am glad to tell your Lordships' House that eventually we took from the statute book in excess of 300 such quangos.
It is fair to ask, "Why were they there for so long?" Some had been there for many years, some it has to be said, existed just in name. I concede to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that those to which he referred were of much greater significance and importance. I shall address myself to them in a moment. Nevertheless we wiped out 300 quangos in one

693
department alone. As the noble Lord said, the number today, at least on the latest information that I have for 1988 from the Cabinet Office, has decreased since 1979 from 2,167 to 1,648. I believe that many more than the 500 have gone but in some cases they have been replaced by others. I shall refer to that later.
Whether or not one considers that such bodies are good or bad and whether or not one wonders why they exist depends on what we expect them to do, whether we approve or disapprove of what they set out to achieve and how that relates to what is currently being done or in some cases not done. I shall address myself in the main to what the Motion calls for—that which pertains to local government.
First, I especially wish to mention the two major urban development corporations which were set up to deal with the London Docklands and Merseyside development. They were the subject of tremendous controversy when they were set up, to deal, in the case of London, with some 6,000 acres of land. I am told that certainly for 50 years and maybe more, although it was less in some parts, that land had been derelict and in disrepair.
The question was this. If local authorities were given additional resources, could they tackle that problem? It was felt that they could not and I believe that was right. A major factor in the debate is that local authorities, especially the urban local authorities, have a whole range of services, many with inner city problems which have built up over the years. When we examine the situations with which they have to deal we realise that they must decide their own priorities for spending: whether more or less money can go to this or that service. I want to be charitable about this, because having worked in the field I know some of the problems. Often with the best of intentions those local authorities cannot do what they would like to do and have been unable to do.
As regards the urban development corporation, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says about the desirability of problems ideally being dealt with by local people. This is an instance where it was not done by local people. I am giving them the best of motivation as they have gone along but they were not able to deal with the problems. Organisations were set up comprising competent and qualified people with know-how, and those organisations went across party lines. When we examine the original composition of the first Docklands Development Corporation team we find that people came from all parties and no parties. They had qualifications, experience and background. They were given resources and were able to apply themselves single-mindedly, with no distractions and no need to decide priorities.
The record shows that while we may not agree with all that has been done and we might have liked to have seen more of this and less of that, sitting here today some eight or nine years later we see a dynamic achievement and a cause for great pride to all the people who have been a part of the development. I am proud of the small part I played in helping to establish the project. As I have already
694
stated, I concede that it might have been nicer and easier if this had been accomplished in other ways. I do not think that local authorities were able to do it. What has happened since more than justifies the setting up of such an organisation with all the downside of it being a non-elected body, to which the noble Lord referred.
The Merseyside Development Corporation is about one-tenth the size. As I recall, it is some 600 acres. It has different problems but nevertheless I know some distinguished people on the corporation who have done a good job. If they have not achieved everything, they have achieved a great deal and will go on doing so.
As for the 10 mini-UDCs which have been set up and are now working, one of the happiest aspects is that they are, in the main, working very well with the local authorities. Who would have thought it? I am vastly encouraged because the elected members have decided very sensibly and responsibly to work together. They accept that they might have liked to have had additional money but they say, "The fact is that it has come here to our area"—I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. He has already answered the point I was going to make. If the local authority is sensible—and these Labour local authorities are—it would recognise that the Government will only give money to their own appointees. They will not give it to elected local authorities. That is the realism that the local authorities have shown.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, nevertheless I am encouraged by the fact that those bodies are working together. I remind the noble Lord that that was not always the case, although it is the case now. The areas controlled by those bodies are benefiting accordingly.
The great thing to remember about the urban development corporations, especially the 10 mini corporations, is that after about five years they are dissolved. They leave behind what they have achieved. That is kept within the community and is passed on to the elected members of a local authority. The urban development corporations are temporary.
The other day I spoke to a chief executive of a large Labour-controlled authority. He said to me that for all the talk of what this Government are supposed to be doing to the detriment of local authorities, he had never known his town and his authority to be so busy and to be undertaking so many activities. Heaven forbid that I should mention the name of that person. It may not do him a lot of good.
I want to stress that all of these bodies have accountability of the most onerous kind. They must be accountable, through Ministers, to Parliament. They have to follow strict audit procedures. I suspect that more than any other body these particular organisations are under scrutiny under the magnifying glass.

695
I know that my noble friend Lady Blatch can say a lot more on the new towns than I can as she has vast experience of them. However, the new towns themselves are unelected bodies. They are something of which the whole country can be proud. Their achievements are immense. When one sees the new towns, one must be impressed with their achievements. But I shall not say more on that now.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the Audit Commission. I remember when that body started. I remember the tough fight we had to get it accepted in your Lordships' House and the many battles that were fought. Yet, at the end of the day, even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, conceded that it does a fine job. It is respected by local authorities. It may not be liked by everyone as it is of course a watchdog. The first director appointed to the Audit Commission was called Mr. Banham. He has now moved to other things. No one could ever have said that Mr. Banham leant towards any particular government, least of all the Conservative Government. The Audit Commission does a great job, but time does not allow me to speak further on it.
I must now refer to the patronage point. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, must have had his tongue in his cheek when he touched on this, although I thought he put his case very honestly. I did a little homework and was amused to find that in 1977, 39 members of the TUC General Council held office in 180 quangos. I have found that many of the heads of the nationalised bodies are now Members of your Lordships' House. I will not name them; they are not present and that would not be fair.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I have a very quick point to make. The research in 1986 to which I referred showed that by 1985 there were more Old Etonians than trade unionists on these 22 bodies.
Lord Bellwin: All I can say is that the research was just catching up with them. I should make one reference to something which Roy Hattersley, then a member of the Labour Cabinet, said in a radio programme in June 1978. It puts the "party political ends" point in context. He said:
"By and large, having set up the National Enterprise Board, or the Price Commission, or the Monopolies Commission, or the General Medical Council, I would want to believe that I'd so equipped it in terms of the membership that they took the right decisions, and I would think it extraordinary if nine times out of ten I didn't want to endorse their recommendations".
So much for politically independent bodies run by politically independent people. One could go on at some length on this and I wish we had more time to do so. However, I think what really matters at the end of the day is the point that Peter Walker the Secretary of State for Wales made in another place in a Written Answer to a Question about the information that he sought concerning candidates for public appointment. On 21st October 1988 at col. 1016 of the Official Report Mr. Peter Walker replied:
"Prior to appointment we seek details for candidates' past and present occupations, relevant specialisms, areas of interest,
696
previous or existing appointments or voluntary service, time availability for public duties and ability to speak Welsh.
Once appointed their performance is regularly assessed and certainly taken into account before any decisions are reached on either reappointment or further appointments".
On a personal note, I should say that one of the tasks that I had in Government was to look at the reappointment of a Member of your Lordships' House who was the chairman of one of the bodies about which we are talking. We decided he was doing such a very good job that we had no hesitation in reappointing him, despite the fact that he sits on the Labour Benches.
I understand the thrust of this debate. As I said at the beginning, I am not without sympathy for it. But if local government is to retain its autonomy to a greater extent than it has been able to do in the past, it must do all the things it was statutorily set up to do. If it concentrates on that and does not digress from it, some of the more outrageous things that have happened in local government in the past will occur less frequently in the future.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, it affords me pleasure to take part in a debate in which many of my noble friends are playing their part. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who has just spoken, was very helpful to the town of Middlesbrough when he was a local government officer. As a local government leader he was outstanding. However, I regret to say that since he left local government and became a Minister and then came to this House, he has never lived up to those high standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I worked together in the same district. The noble Lord has great knowledge of local government. It is my belief that if he had been able to pursue the policy in which he believed, local government would not be in the weak position that it is today.
When the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, was Secretary of State for the Environment, I told him that we should do something to remind the public that our democratic society won through to victory in the last war. I told him that one way in which he and I could make a contribution would be to get a statue as a tribute to Attlee placed in the House of Commons Members Lobby. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was very enthusiastic. Both of us in due course were present at the ceremony when Attlee's statue was erected.
I became a member of Walthamstow Borough Council in the late 1920s. In 1945 I became the mayor of that council. That just shows how old I am getting. The council was very representative. It included civil servants, teachers, trade union officials, factory workers and housewives. Those people provided a very high standard of local government services for housing, schools, public cleansing libraries and museums. Three members of that local council eventually became members of the Labour Government in 1964.
Walthamstow Borough Council was able to experiment in providing other services. It provided one of the first maternity hospitals in the country

697
and one of the first day nursery schools. In the field of education it also introduced a system whereby two central schools were selected in which the school-leaving age was increased to 16, a forerunner of the national increase in school-leaving age to 16.
Thus local government can experiment in the introduction of social services of one kind or another which in due course could be adopted nationally.
A good example of how local government serves the public is provided by my own war-time experience. I was chairman of the Air Raid Precautions Committee after the passing of the 1935 Act. When war broke out in 1939 we were ready to meet enemy bombardment. The first fire-watching scheme in the country was introduced by me, as a trade union officer with the National Union of Public Employees, and the town clerk of Westminster, Parker Morris—the father-in-law of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
I became very active in the civil defence service and when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister I was invited to become a deputy regional commissioner for the South-East of England. There were 96 local authorities and the task of the commissioners was to co-ordinate their work and liaise with the Army and the police. That could not have been achieved by central direction. The work done by the local authorities was outstanding and the late King George VI acknowledged it by sending a personal letter to each of the commissioners. That answers the Prime Minister's contention that local authorities are not accountable, are inefficient and irresponsible.
Over the past 50 years, local authorities of all political persuasions have carried out their duties efficiently and in the interests of those who elected them. Over the past nine years the Government have progressively and deliberately deprived elected authorities of their powers and have vested those powers in Secretaries of State and civil servants. Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 there have been 46 local government Acts of Parliament and 12 major changes in local government finance. The Government have undermined the confidence of members of local authorities of all political persuasions who have worked so hard for the good of their communities. Local authorities, the Churches, the CBI, trade unions and other organisations are opposed to present government policy.
In creating quangos to replace local government the Government have packed their boards with political sympathisers. A comparison of the membership of 22 quasi-autonomous non-government organisations in 1979 with their membership today shows that two-thirds of the chairmen had connections with the Conservative Party, nine were active members of the party, four were directors of companies which subscribed to the Tory Party. Since 1979 fewer members have been drawn from local government and community organisations than ever before. More and more businessmen are taking their places. Women are under-represented. There is a greater chance of being invited by this Government to sit
698
on a public body if one has been to Eton or Harrow, than if one is a member of a trade union or a social organisation.
By the creation of boards for transport, health, police, docklands and a range of other services, the powers of local government are being further diminished. Those boards meet for the most part behind closed doors, well protected from criticism by a buffer of public relations officers. They are not accountable to the public that they endeavour to serve.
I did the groundwork for my work in national politics as a member of a local council for many years. As a councillor, one is in daily contact with the electorate and the administration, working closely with local government officers. The weakening of local government is a threat to democracy itself and the Government stand condemned for their policy.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for his half-kindly reference to me, I can reciprocate by saying that in our part of London he and his very distinguished wife have played a most notable part in local life, she particularly in the health service. That is remembered widely by many of the older of my former constituents.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, started with a proposition with which everyone would agree, namely that all governments have made use of quangos. It is a perfectly acceptable means of making arrangements for public service. However, when he started talking about the multiplication of quangos he left me behind. There has never beer aquango-making period remotely to compare with the period of the first post-war Labour Government who transferred huge swathes of private industry, co-operatives, local authorities, charities and many others into the hands of government-appointed nominees. What is more, every successive Labour Government have sought to repeat that process. One has only to look at the last Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 to see that further swathes of the economy were brought under the control of government-appointed quangos—the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry, computer companies and many others.
That process has been most decisively reversed in the past nine years, to the huge benefit of the public, of the economy, and, moreover, of the employees in those industries. It has always remained a complete mystery to me why week after week in both Houses of Parliament Labour politicians complain about the conditions of employment of those in the public sector and in the next breath demand that there should be many more of them by bringing industries back into the public sector.
Now I turn to the bodies with which this debate is particularly concerned. My noble friend Lord Bellwin has given the figures and I shall not repeat them except to make one point. I was responsible for the creation of 193 district health authorities in the place of 90 area health authorities. That was a

699
process of devolution to the more local level, which I have to say—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is nodding in agreement—was widely welcomed in all parts of the country. That comprised much the largest part of the small increase which went some way to offset the major reduction in quangos. There has been a net cull of over 500 quangos since 1979. The message is clear. If one is looking for quango breeding, go for the Labour Party; if one wants to reduce them, vote Conservative.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I am most grateful. One of the reasons why I nodded in agreement with him was that he had to take that action in order to put right the tremendous increase in quangos created by his predecessor as Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to have the noble Lord's support for what I said. I believe that mere numbers are not necessarily the most important point if one obtains further dispersal of power away from the centre.
I should like to refer to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and draw on my experiences at the Department of the Environment. Let us look first at the rules regarding the making of public appointments of which the noble Lord had some criticism to make. I worked to what was called Issue 3 of the Civil Service Department Guide on Public Appointments Procedures, dated April 1984. On looking through that, one sees that the details are spelt out in two letters dated in 1976—one from Sir Kenneth Stowe, the Labour Prime Minister's private secretary, and the other from the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Douglas Allen, now the noble Lord, Lord Croham. They spelt out the procedures. which were exactly the same under the Conservative Government as under the Labour Government. There had been no change in form or substance from the rules operated by the government of whom I was a member.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that surely No. 10 has had a great influence on public appointments. Those procedures spell out the precise order of events before one can approach someone about a public appointment. One of the essential steps is that before one can even speak to someone—it was the same in 1976 as it was when I was in office—one has to put one's proposal to No. 10 and have it accepted.
The Public Appointments Unit—the PAU—maintains a central list of between 5,000 and 6,000 names of people from all walks of life. Although it is aimed primarily at providing candidates for more senior appointments, it is no longer right to refer to it as simply a list of "the great and the good". It is the source of information for a wide range of appointments, including major regional and departmental committee appointments. The central list contains the names of people from a wide range of disciplines, professions and occupations, as well as the names of generalists.
The list also contains the names of people in what are sometimes referred to as special demand groups.
700
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to women. There has been a great increase in the number of women appointed to public bodies in recent years, not least because there are now many more women on the central list. There are also younger people, members of minority groups and others who it is felt should be considered for appointments. There is also a list of retired civil servants.
The noble Lord referred to political nominations. Many people think that there is a separate list of political nominations. It is right that the political affiliations of those people on the central list should be noted, but there are no formal arrangements—there were certainly none when I was in office—operated by the Civil Service for receiving a flow of nominations from any political party, national or local.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the lessons of experience contradict the noble Lord's comments. When people like myself raise questions about political affiliations being known with regard to appointments to district and regional health boards, we are told that such affiliations are not listed. Who is right?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am reporting the procedure that operated when I was a part of it.
Thus, when an appointment is to be made, it is officials—civil servants—who consult the PAU. They add some names from their own lists. They then consult the Prime Minister and, with the Prime Minister's consent, approach the first choice. It is a set procedure operated by the Civil Service in all departments on behalf of their Ministers. If it had been subverted to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has sought to suggest, he in fact makes a serious accusation about the political impartiality of the Civil Service.
When I made appointments, I tried to achieve a balance. In some cases, I succeeded. I quote as one example the appointments to the Widdicombe Committee. Although it was well known that that committee was set up to look at abuses within local government which had been widely commented on, the committee was chaired by someone who had been a Labour parliamentary candidate. The committee members included a distinguished local government official, one capable businessman, a very distinguished public servant who was certainly not of Conservative persuasion and a lady with wide experience of local and public affairs; only the last name had any Conservative affiliations and those were pretty tenuous. It was an excellent committee. I consulted all the local government bodies and all the political parties; they all eventually agreed to co-operate despite the fact that the intention of the Widdicombe Committee was clear. In this Session we shall debate some of the recommendations that flowed from that report.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin referred to urban development corporations. I do not wish to repeat what he said. It was always our practice to consult local authorities informally, but I have to say that during my time most of them refused to have anything whatever to do with the corporations and

701
declined to nominate people. They imposed conditions that they knew perfectly well the Government could not possibly accept. We always invited local councillors to serve,
"as persons having special knowledge of the locality".
To their eternal credit, three distinguished council leaders in London—Paul Beasley of Tower Hamlets, Jack Hart of Newham and John O'Grady of Southwark—agreed to serve, despite the total hostility of their own local authorities. When their terms of office expired, we were unable to recruit anyone from the councils to replace them, except more recently in Tower Hamlets where political control has changed. It has now accepted a place on the LDDC. Newham and Southwark still refuse to do so.
I have tried again and again to persuade a representative of Liverpool City Council to serve on the Merseyside Development Corporation, but the council has refused. It does not lie well in the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that there has not been proper consideration regarding the appointment of Labour nominees. They were asked again and again, and again and again they refused to serve. Happily, wiser counsels now prevail in Liverpool and a council representative now sits on the Merseyside Development Corporation.
Bristol is an even more absurd example. The Government invited two city councillors and a councillor from Avon Council to sit on the Bristol Urban Development Corporation. On consultation, the city council took an official line of non-co-operation and the county council voted down acceptance of a place. Happily, its members were wiser and the individuals approached chose to outface their colleagues and serve rather than boycott the corporation.
We had problems with the appointment of a deputy chairman for London Docklands to replace the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, (to whom I mentioned the matter) at the end of his distinguished period of office. We looked at a range of possible successors because we always took the view that it was wise to have a Labour deputy chairman to balance a businessman chairman. We considered the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was approached, but he very properly made the point that he would have had to give up some of his Front Bench appointments and was therefore unable to accept. We eventually appointed John Mills, a Labour councillor from Camden. When he had to be replaced last November, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, took his place. Perhaps I might tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that his name was on the list but he was not approached because it was felt that he would not have accepted in view of his Front Bench responsibilities.
The idea that we have not appointed Labour people is absurd. If one looks at other authorities—water authorities, development councils and so on—one sees that that is not true. I totally reject the main accusations made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that the Government's record in handling appointments to those bodies has been of
702
a very high order and has not had the political bias to which he referred. I believe that he grossly overstated the case and has left out of account entirely the efforts made by myself and others to try to obtain nominees from other parties only to find that they refuse to serve. I think that this Motion is a lot of nonsense and I hope that the House will treat it as such. It may be a point of some interest to the Labour Party to debate the findings of the Labour Research Unit, but I do not believe that they have much purpose or relevance to reality.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced a word which is not easily used either in this Chamber or in another place; namely "patronage". We should not baulk the issue. We are politicians. One of the arts of being a good politician is the manner in which one uses the patronage and privilege that one has. I believe therefore that it is perfectly proper arid sensible for this House to spend a short time in 1989 reviewing the history of patronage used primarily by central government over the past few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, spoke from his long experience. He was able to persuade me of the attempts that he has made to achieve an appropriate balance. That does not always mean an exact balance. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was kind enough to indicate to me that he was going to refer to the situation five years ago when certainly did not object to being approached. However, I indicated to him then, as I indicate to the House now, that I was sent here, not in order to obtain perhaps a post somewhere else, but to be a working Peer on behalf of the Labour Party, and I was not prepared to accept his offer although I told him that I appreciated his thought at the time.
We are considering situations that are light years away from the reality of 1989. We are looking at the situation from a period that I would categorise as bipartisan when attempting to make sure that major public bodies have some semblance or balance. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes a charge that I believe is well founded. It is that patronage and privilege is being used excessively for party political ends in 1989, far beyond what those of us who have served in public life for 20 or 30 years—or, as my noble friend, Lord Bottomley said, perhaps 50 years or longer—have experienced. The situation has radically changed. We are inviting the House to say that it is not good for public life and it is certainly not good for local government.
When one wants to know about the quality of life as a public representative on a council one does not listen to what I say from my experience but one goes to the councillors in one's community, whether they are Labour or Conservative. In 1989 am still able to keep up my contacts with the local councillors of both political persuasions in Enfield.. It is not a question of nostalgia, or of saying, 'Things ain't what they used to be." It is a question of considering the quality of life as a councillor in 1989. That quality of life has been made far worse not only because of the problems but because of the attitude of this Government and above all else of the Prime

703
Minister. Reference has been made to the urban district councils, in particular London. The anti-democratic nexus was the crux of the argument in 1979, 1980 and 1981. I was heavily involved in the arguments on the planning and land legislation. I supported the view of my party and local people that the creation of the urban development corporation would not be the best way forward. I have to admit in 1989 that the record of the London Docklands Development Corporation is a very fine one indeed. Those people who have been associated with it are entitled to take most of the credit, although not all. With the passage of time, it means that councillors, not only in London but in many other places, are political realists. There was a period when consultation, and simply saying, "No", was perhaps the mode of the day. However, the councils have to work with the government of the day. They have to try to reconcile passionately held beliefs. What has happened in local government has borne that out over the period.
When one talks of the extent to which this Government have interfered and used patronage, one can talk in terms of personalities and appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, decided to illustrate the extent to which trade unions and trade unionists were part of the picture some years ago. I may have written it down incorrectly, but I understand that 39 members of the TUC General Council were members of 180 quangos. I bet that the noble Lord could not find 39 members of the TUC General Council who are members of those quangos today—nor 29 or 9. Some might say that the trade union movement is marginalised and irrelevant, and that there are not as many high serving members of trade unions who are competent to serve on a range of bodies as were indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. But if one is not prepared to give them a fair share—and I believe that the charge we are making is that they are not getting a fair share—then I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, should be as worried as I am.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to equate his question on the representation of trade union people with the representation of Conservatives during the same period of time?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord says that to be a trade unionist ipso facto is not to be a Conservative. I do not argue that there is not an imbalance. The point is that 39 out of 180 is a gross distortion of a fair proportion. I am saying that not only were trade unionists represented, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated when speaking of earlier days, the Co-operative movement was inordinately well represented.
I shall give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although she has some 12 minutes of her own later. I also give her some of my time in order to keep the balance. The trade union movement and the Co-operative movement have men and women who are able to serve in public life. But they are being denied that opportunity not because they do not have the able men and women but for party, if not political purposes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving me a few seconds of his precious time. Has he taken into account the TUC's decision not to become involved in the Government's training schemes? It was invited to do so but chose not to become involved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, a body as powerful and influential as the TUC is entitled to consider how best it can demonstrate just how much it dislikes government legislation. If it decides not to be represented, that is its decision.
However, we are talking about a trend—a mood. We are discussing what has happened in public life over the past few years. I make the charge that this Government, and, above all, the Prime Minister, are responsible for changing ordinary people's willingness to serve in public life.
Among many other sensible words, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, introduced the words "accountable" and "accountability". He says that people are just as accountable now. I do not believe it. I believe that there are fewer people willing to serve in public life now than ever before. When people today consider what is in it for them—and I do not refer to money —in terms of satisfaction, being able to influence events and taking decisions on behalf of local communities in comparison with the past they feel that there is nothing in it for them. Many of them are wretched, in particular those who have good memories of the position 10 or 15 years ago.
Let me tell noble Lords what is happening in Enfield today. We now have a proposal being brought forward before the council to put all council services out to tender—not just those that the Government are suggesting, but all of them. We want Enfield run as Enfield plc. We want two categories of director—executive directors who are the council officers and non-executive directors who are the councillors. Every 12 months we shall report to the shareholders, who are the people who live in Enfield. At the end of the day that may give a better and more efficient service, but what about the nexus of accountability? What about the nexus of community? And what about making life worth living for those people? We ought to listen carefully to what other people are saying.
I have here an article written in the Observer magazine a few weeks ago and I believe it sums it up.
"But the charge against Mrs Thatcher goes deeper than this. All governments may have made politically motivated appointments from time to time; only she, it seems, has systematically subverted the country's institutions, breaking their independence and bending them to her will. Political commentators have long theorised about her hostility to all 'intermediate institutions': local government, the trade unions, the broadcasting organisations, the universities, the Church. When she cannot abolish them altogether, the argument goes, she packs them with her placemen".
I believe that that charge is well founded. When the GLC proved that it was not prepared to bend, it was abolished. When the Inner London Education Authority proved that it was not prepared to bend, it was abolished. When football proves that is has difficulty in managing its problems, a quango is to be created, the Football Membership Authority, which will be able to run football—except in the

705
small print we find that it has to have the endorsement of the Secretary of State. I believe the Government's attitude is summed up by what the Prime Minister said last week, "Bag it, bin it and then we will win it"
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, it has never, at least until recent times, been a principle of the Conservative Party that the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best. I was not wholly happy to hear my noble friend say that he operated in these matters under some department directive. I did not know about it in my time. Perhaps I should have, but I have always believed that, while it is perhaps nice for noble Lords opposite to have their names on the list of the great and good, there are great and good outside the list which is kept in Whitehall.
Of course a Conservative Government or a Conservative Minister may believe that power has been exercised wisely and fairly, but that is not a good or sufficient argument for increased central control. The trouble is that the nominated body looks towards those who nominated it and away from those elected to represent local interests and opinion.
Indeed I have now come to the conclusion that preventing central government, the executive, from wielding power almost to the exclusion of all rivals has become an urgent task. The process of centralisation for the sake of good government, central as well as local, should be halted and halted now. My reminiscences cannot go back as far as those of the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, but when I went into local government in 1945 on my council, there was the Accountant General of the Ministry of Pensions and another high ranking civil servant, a director of a large public company, a senior partner of a firm of London solicitors, and the secretary general of the Municipal and General Workers Union. I can remember when in 1949 at the conference in Torquay of the Association of Municipal Corporations the late Mr. Walter Elliott, himself a great Minister in charge of local government at one time, warned about the growth of nominated bodies. He cited the example of the Roman and the Chinese Empires, which eventually both collapsed under the weight of centralised bureaucracy which could no longer recruit at the periphery.
Local councillors directly elected play a vital role in the maintenance of a free and responsible society, because they are the representatives of local public opinion. They are responsive to local needs and wishes and they are, I emphasise, an essential counterbalance to the immense and growing power of central government. When a Conservative Party is in opposition it understands that. I wish we could recognise that the purpose of local elections is not to recruit those who are acceptable to existing authority. Traditionally if there is a Conservative government the Socialists win the local elections. It is very hard on councillors that this should be so. The reserve position applies when there is a Labour government when we win the elections.
706
I entirely agree with those noble Lords who have said that the diminution of local democracy by the transference of great blocks of power to ministerial nominees is dangerous. Ministers are but shadows. They come and go, but these Whitehall mandarins remain with their directive telling Ministers whom they should or should not nominate. Not that I believe that every Minister takes that advice because if one looks at who is appointed there is a tendency for people to appoint those whom they think support them rather than those whom they think do not.
To come to more recent times, I was reminded in an article in the Financial Times on 7th February by Mr. John Humphries, the chairman of the Environmental Council, that when in 1973 I introduced the Water Bill and set up the existing water authorities, I then gave an assurance in the name of the Government that the local authorities would have an absolute majority on the water authorities' boards. It could then be argued that there was simply a change of form not of substance. The ratepayers who had bought all the infrastructure and paid for it were told that they would still have ultimate control over it, but in 1983 the Government quietly changed the rules of the game by removing most of the local authority members. They did not ask for this or that member of the council to go on to the boards: they were told that they must all leave. I deplored that action then and I deplore it now. In the process the Government effectively transferred the ownership and control of the assets which previously belonged to the ratepayers into their own hands. The effect, as Mr. Humphries says in his article, is that,
"the Government are selling something that they do not own and for which they have never paid".
Lord Dean of Beswick: What about compensation, my Lords?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: The compensation should go to the ratepayers, my Lords.. They should have their assets back. On 31st January, the Government in their Statement introducing their proposals for reform of the National Health Service announced that in future local authorities would lose their present rights to appoint direct their own members of health authorities. That moved me to ask the Minister who had made the Statement and who is replying to the debate today why the Government persistently regard democratically elected councillors as unrepresentative of local inerests and concerns. To that I received the reply that the object was to confine the numbers involved on boards to people who have a straightforward, technical contribution to make. On that basis I suggested that government might as well be run by Permanent Secretaries instead of Ministers. All this was being done, I was told, and I quote from the Statement:
"Authorities will need to be organised as more effective decision-making and managerial bodies."—[Official Report, 31/1/89; col. 1004.]
But efficiency as the greatest social good has been the cry of despots throughout the ages. I am not particularly impressed by the record of Mussolini just because he made the trains run on time.

707
The doctrine that central executive power is exercised in the name of efficiency is not confined to any one political party. It can come from the Right or the Left. What concerns me is what elective dictatorship, of which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone wrote, has come not from the Left but from the Right. Labour Governments have nothing to boast about in that regard. My noble friends have already referred to their not wholly satisfactory record. Change the government and you change the tune. I am concerned that over many years covering successive governments the status of the elected member has been seriously eroded by the growth of public bodies whose members are nominated by a higher authority or by the Minister.
I do not believe that the charge is answered by the Government saying that they have abolished a number of quangos. Some are purely governmental bodies. I regret the departure of several, such as a small committee of mine responsible for bird-watching in the Royal parks. It did not cost much money and as a statistic is not very impressive.
Nor do I believe, as one of my noble friends on the Front Bench recently said, that it is any good for the Government to say that they have given people more freedom to buy their own homes and to choose local education. It is not good enough to say, "You can have the freedoms that we choose to give you but not the freedoms we do not choose to give".
When a Labour Government was in office the Conservative Central Office produced a nice little document which is still worth reading. It is entitled Guidelines for good local government. It stated:
"Conservatives oppose the growing tendency to make all decisions in Whitehall. Labour, on the other hand, sides with Whitehall against town hall".
Our cry in the Conservative Party used to be, "Town hall, not Whitehall". It was the party opposite which was then the prisoner of the central bureaucracy.
I also recall a draft election address issued by Conservative Central Office for use by local candidates. It denounced the taking of power out of the hands of local councils and giving it to people who had not been elected but hand-picked by the Minister. It proclaimed:
"This is a vicious system, not what should be expected from Socialists who are always talking about democracy".
There is just one question I want to put to the Minister. Why is a system which is vicious when there is a Socialist Minister any less vicious when there is a Conservative Minister?
4.22 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Some years ago I was one of a delegation of junior councillors who on several occasions saw him when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. Although we differed politically we gained the impression that our comments were heeded. They may not have been acted upon but there was some sympathy towards them.
I am glad that the noble Lord referred to the appropriation of the water authorities. I recalled that
708
when I left Manchester as leader of the council the valuation of its water holdings was between £250 million and £300 million. That has been taken away without compensation. When the privatisation is complete and all the surrounding land has been flogged off to the private sector, not one penny will go back to the ratepayers of Manchester who helped to develop that. I declare an interest as a ratepayer in two areas in Greater Manchester. I have a property in Tameside and another in Manchester.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, refer to his democratisation of the health service. If he did what he said, then I applaud him. Can I expect that he will join us in our stand against the Government's new proposals which will remove every local authority representative from the new health authorities? I hope to see him stand and be counted on that issue, because that is the intention of the present Government.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I localise my argument. Most of the debate has so far been related to urban development corporations. I am not against them; initially I was opposed to them. It is nonsense to say in the Chamber today that they were willingly accepted by the local authorities in whose areas they were planted. They were accepted reluctantly. Some of the cities on which they were imposed were in the process of huge developments freely entrered into with various bodies such as Phoenix Initiatives. However, the corporations exist and it is wise for local authorities to join in and make them work. That was the advice that I gave when asked.
I should like to turn my attention to the residuary bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was the Minister when the Local Government Act was passed which set them up. I dealt with the Bill with my noble friend Lord Graham. I have the impression that some of the residuary bodies are now involved in activities never dreamt of by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I believe that that is probably because of a change of Secretary of State. We on these Benches have always said that one should not expect Secretaries of State to behave consistently. One may act in a completely different way from another.
I recall our discussions on the Local Government Bill, in particular the residuary bodies. We asked how they would be formed and what their powers would be. Subsequently a situation arose in the Greater Manchester area about which concern was expressed in the press. It was the development of the site of the old Central Station in Manchester, now known as G-Mex. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows about that. I was not the only person to be concerned about some of the rumours which were being circulated in the responsible press regarding the financial arrangements. The body had been set up by the previous Greater Manchester Labour Council. I believe that it got it wrong and made an appalling blunder at that time.
At the time I was concerned about what I read in the press and I sent a full briefing of my information to the Secretary of State, the right honourable Kenneth Baker. He was also concerned. Nothing was made public because I understood that if the matter was reported in the press commercial damage could

709
be caused. I met Mr. Baker and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then a Minister, to discuss the matter. I was concerned by the fact that rumours were being spread that the new chairman of the residuary body—whose name I did not know but I knew that an appointment with him had been made—had been placed on the board by the then chairman of the company who had been chief executive of the Greater Manchester Council.
I am convinced that I am right about what Mr. Baker said. He said, "No, I have placed the chairman of the residuary body on that company to safeguard the ratepayers' money". The ratepayers held 51 per cent. of the shares in that company but had no say in how it was to be operated. It was the first time I had heard the name when Mr. Baker said, "Do you know Peter Hadfield?"; I said, "I have never heard of Peter Hadfield". He said, "He is the new chairman and he will look after the interests of the ratepayers concerned".
Developments took place which resulted in my tabling a Question in your Lordships' House in the middle of last year. I discovered quite obliquely that the chairman of G-Mex had been removed from office by the chairman of the residuary body and he had taken his place. When I asked the Question in your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that he had been removed because he had ceased to operate the company in the public interest. That was the official answer. Subsequently, the person involved has disappeared from the scene and the chairman of the residuary body is in charge.
But that is only part of the argument, because another company is involved which is known as Greater Manchester Property Trust Limited. The former GMC set up a complex web of companies to manage and control this site. These companies have never reflected the interests of the public sector nor the level of public financial support which was provided. The public sector had no power to nominate members or directors, to control remuneration levels or the finances of the company, or to monitor the affairs of the company. Elected members were specifically excluded by the constitution of one company to become directors.
There was, I believe, £20 million of funding put in to start this company off; and what activated my concern was a prediction of enormous debts accruing. I did not see why I and my family should have debts loaded on to us through the rates ad infinitum by the actions of the chairman of a residuary body or anybody else, taking control. Suffice it to say that it has taken over two years for the chairman of the residuary body and his chief executive officer, who, by the way, was the legal officer of the former Greater Manchester Council and who I would have thought had some say in drawing up the original legal concept, to set this company in being. But it has taken him over two years to sort it out and either he or somebody in his department, as the senior legal officer working for the Greater Manchester Corporation, must have been responsible for drawing up those contracts.
710
Turning now to the present situation, where obviously there is a dispute going on involving the City of Manchester, I do not want to get involved in the political arguments there although I do not see eye to eye with all that has been done. Nevertheless it is the elected body in Manchester; a short while ago it was trying to negotiate development as an adjunct to this particular site and was told by the residuary body "Hands off'. What the chairman has done in order to bolster his strength in connection with Greater Manchester Property Trust Ltd. is to appoint all the members of the residuary body as directors and also two of the leaders of other councils in the area (Labour-controlled) as directors in order to discipline the City of Manchester. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he brought the Bill through Parliament had any idea that such a situation was going to develop.
The point I want to put to the Minister is this. I understand that the papers are now there; an order has been laid, and is available, which is intended to wind up the Manchester residuary body. What happens to that company when it is wound up? The residuary body is set up only on a limited lifespan of five years—I think I have that right—and the period can be extended somewhat by the Secretary of State. Does it mean that in June, July or August of this year, if it is wound up, the chairman of the residuary body and all those directors he has appointed will cease to have any control? Will it then go to the people who are expected to provide the money to keep it going—that is, the ratepayers in the 10 districts of the former Greater Manchester metropolitan authority?
I have a specific interest because I am going to have to pay two lots of rates in Greater Manchester. In my opinion, my rates should be fixed by the local authority and there should not even be one infinitesimal part of that which should be fixed by the chairman of the residuary body. I n real terms that can happen—and incidentally today's debate will be only the forerunner of another debate. There is not the time to go further into this today, and I do not want to go over my allotted time because it is grossly unfair to do so. But I have to tell the Minister that I shall be coming back with more detail to this matter when the order is placed here to wind up the residuary body because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. There are 2¾ million people living in the Greater Manchester area and I do not believe that residuary bodies were brought into being by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to get involved in this type of activity.
I speak on a specific problem. I do not know what is happening with residuary bodies in other area, but I must tell the Minister that I shall be coming back to him on this matter at a later stage, depending on his answers.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall start by declaring an interest in that I was one of the people who appeared in an honours list in, I think, 1983 when I received the CBE and also later in 1987 when I was elevated to the peerage as a working Peeress, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and

711
the noble Lords, Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Johnston and Lord Trafford.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will forgive me if I say to him that today he did not give us the usual impressive performance in the House which we are used to. I may be wrong but I suspect that he has been put up to this debate because he did not appear at any time go give the arguments observable commitment. Much of his case had more to do with the fact that he does not like the Government's policies: for example, the creation of CTCs, the opting out clause of the Education Act, the various housing initiatives, the abolition of the GLC and so on.
The Motion on the Order Paper today calls attention to the growth of non-elected bodies, yet in his opening statement the noble Lord said that his Motion had nothing to do with the growth of non-elected bodies. It is further concerned with the system of patronage, yet he talked much less of that then of his disquiet that too many Tories are being appointed.
As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, the system has not changed since the time of Labour Administrations in the 1970s. The number of non-elected bodies achieved its peak under the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 1970s. In the closing years of the last Labour Administration we saw very rapid and considerable growth in the number of non-elected bodies. Coupled with an energetic nationalisation programme covering oil, shipbuilding and aerospace, patronage at that time by the Labour Government for their supporters was rampant. Executive action was increasingly the prerogative not of the government of the day but of the quango.
At the close of the last Labour Administration in 1979 plans in the pipeline included the creation of a national planning commission, a national transport planning authority, a communications council, a public broadcasting commission, a national youth body, a central advisory committee on education, an industrial democracy commission, four new broadcasting authorities and seven new advisory committees on the media. By 1979 there were more than 3,000 non-elected bodies to which Ministers had appointed more than 40,000 political placements.
In 1979, on coming into office Mrs. Thatcher and her Government set about the task of reducing the number of non-elected bodies. First, an audit of such bodies was put in hand under Sir Leo Pliatzky, a senior civil servant. When he reported (in Cmnd. 7797) in 1980, his findings confirmed the massive growth of non-elected bodies under the previous administrations. The main concerns of the Government at that time were that there were too many quangos, that they were too heavy a burden on the public purse and that there was very little accountability to Parliament. By 1982 the Conservative Government had achieved reductions of around 20 per cent., and that has since risen to between 25 and 30 per cent. That does not include the Government's privatisation programme.
712
As regards the patronage system used by many previous Labour Administrations, we need no lectures on this side of the House on that issue. As I have said, patronage by the Labour Government of their supporters was rampant and the figures I was going to use in this connection have already been used twice already during this debate.
I must declare a further interest in that for about three months I served on the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, and I can confirm that not all the appoiontments made by this Government were Conservatives. A further declaration of interest is that until recently I served as a local government representative on the board of Peterborough Development Corporation. Government appointments to that board by this Government have included Labour supporters and Conservatives, together with, I believe, one SDP member in the past. However, the board as a whole was predominantly apolitical. Indeed, if I were to make a comparison between the work of the development corporation and my own local authority, it would be that the development corporation got on with the job in hand in a completely apolitical manner, whereas in my local government authority the atmosphere is highly politically charged most of the time.
The area of non-elected bodies that I know best is development corporations. The new town development of Peterborough was achieved by successful co-operation between the corporation, a Labour-controlled city council and a Conservative —subsequently a hung—county council. The setting up of urban development corporations has proved equally successful—that has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Bellwin—by combining public and private sector finance with specific statutory powers to acquire land and buildings in order to secure the regeneration of run-down inner cities. Membership of these bodies reflects public and private sector interests and with few exceptions they have secured the co-operation of local government to achieve what is, or should be, a common objective—the regeneration of run-down areas. Where instances of poor co-operation have occured, it has almost invariably been due to Labour-controlled local authorities.
There is an argument that says that if local authorities were given money they would achieve the improvements for their areas. I am afraid that that is simply not so. Local authorities—I am a member of a local authority and I believe emphatically in local government—have many pressures on them. To presuppose that such concentrated expenditure over a defined period of time would take precedence over other needy programmes without serious interruption is wishful thinking. Development corporations with clearly defined objectives, using private and public sector funds and working co-operatively with local authorities of any or no political persuasion, are a recipe for getting the job done.
The Government have done more than any government before them not only to stem the growth of quangos but to reduce the overall number and their consequential costs on the taxpayer. More significanly, they have made such bodies

713
accountable to Parliament. In 1979 the Government included in the terms of reference of departmental Select Committees the function of scrutinising the work of government departments and associated official bodies. In 1981 Ministers were made responsible to Parliament for the effectiveness, efficiency and financial control of associated departmental quangos, thereby allowing questions to be asked openly on the Floor of the House.
The Motion is strongly drafted and the wrong arguments have been used to support it. The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and his colleagues about the growth of non-elected bodies, the patronage system and the effects on local government are entirely misplaced.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, there are three propositions in the Motion. Before I address myself to them I should like to make a few general observations on the debate.
I particularly agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, said. I am sure that the right approach to the Motion is not a statistical one; it is what is happening to the country. The noble Lord referred to one of my pet hobbyhorses, that is, the lecture some years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, on the elective dictatorship and his subsequent book The Dilemma of Democracy. In that book he envisaged absolutely accurately that within the country, if anybody cared to use the powers and did not have those inbuilt restraints that mercifully most leaders of any party have always had, there is the power to exercise complete dictatorship, subject to election every four or five years as the matter comes up. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, that one of the greatest countervailing influences would be the restoration of pride, responsibility and freedom and certainly a much greater degree of liberty to local authorities. We are now in great danger of making the job of local authorities so unattractive that the calibre of the people who serve on them will gradually go down overall although there may be gifted individuals who for a variety of reasons go in. The more the general standard of local authorities declines in the country the more power central Government will seek to take into their own hands. I think this is a very bad development.
If I may turn to the three propositions, the first is the growth of non-elected bodies. Statistically I do not think that this is made out at all. It has been an unhappy growth in many ways, but an inevitable one in certain circumstances. It was one of the matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed as giving Government the power, if they sought to use it, by using patronage to control government of the country more and more without any countervailing influences coming in.
Surely one should not have non-elected bodies unless the circumstances are such that one has to have them. Let us take the governors of the BBC. It seems fairly obvious that they should be non-elected.
714
They should be selected so that they are representative of the country as a whole and capable of exercising independent judgment, whatever their political affiliations.
One regrettable fact of life in recent times is that even this august body is more and more suspect because it is thought that the Prime Minister cannot bear to put on it people who are not, in the famous words, "one of us". That is a very sad reflection.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as the noble Lord has listened to a number of speeches of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, he might have thought that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in fact exercised a very broad patronage in this regard.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I shall come to the reason why I express it in this way. The point I made is that in regard to certain bodies—the urban development corporations, for example, and the rural development corporation in my own part of the country, which is now described under some other name—when there was a specific problem, one needed to direct funds with no competition for those funds to achieve a given end. It is right to say, for instance, that when the Labour government originally set up the rural development corporation in my part of the country—it is, after all, a very liberal part of the country—it had an extremely balanced board. There was an ex-Member of another place, Mr. Emrys Roberts, a one time director of Calico printers and an experienced businessman and chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the fact that he had a system—run by his civil servants apparently—of appointing people to non-elected bodies. I do not doubt that Ministers of all denominations or parties have shown in the past that they were capable of achieving a balance. I accept therefore that there are non-elected bodies that are essential to achieve certain given ends with modern government. Great care must be taken to make sure that there is a balance when they are appointed.
I come to the second proposition: the patronage system used by central Government for their selection. I move in a number of circles. I move obviously in a political circle; I move in a legal circle and I move in a farming circle. I am a non-executive director of a large business and I move in business. I move in a Welsh circle. In the last two or three years I know from general conversation that there has been a feeling that the Government and the Prime Minister in particular are overdoing it.
It is not that bodies have become politicised, because to a degree they always were, but they have become over-politicised. Every sensible person in this country knows that that is true. In the past two or three years in particular we have seen the over-politicisation of these bodies and it is creating a number of problems for the future of this country. We can reduce representation through patronage. After all, I am in the legal profession which is a prime example of where patronage is very important to certain levels of careers if certain ambitions are to be fulfilled, and so on. It can have a devastating effect on people. Their independence oozes out of

715
them. Often their independent judgment oozes out of them, too, in the hope of attracting patronage by not being too critical. That can have a devastating general effect on the country. I believe that whereas the first proposition in the Motion is certainly not made out, the implication of the second proposition—that there is a certain injudicious and, indeed, misuse of patronage—is by and large made out.
I come to the third part of the Motion and the effect of such bodies on local government. It is obvious that if you use non-elected bodies to undermine the power of elected bodies you will undermine the morale and the influence of the elected bodies. However, much more than the use of non-elected bodies is the Government's centralising tendency that is undermining local government. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, in his analysis of what has been happening in the country. Oddly enough, it was open to any Prime Minister since the war, and before the war as far as I know, to develop the elective dictatorship. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was moved into print on this matter by the fear of a Left-wing government and an extremely clever Prime Minister gradually taking all the power controls, so to speak, into his or her own hands and exercising them so that the government was indistinguishable from a dictatorship, though an elective one which would have to be re-elected every four or five years.
The truth is that we are seeing this tendency writ large today and I am not surprised that a traditional Conservative like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, expressed himself in the way that he did today. It is in the interests of our country that we have countervailing influences to this centralising trend that is now becoming totally unacceptable throughout the country.
4.52 p.m
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have taken part in this debate. In one way it has perhaps been a more lively debate than we might have expected because the best part was the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Jenkin of Roding. If we had had only that three minute exchange it would have been a rich debate. However, that is not to undervalue the points made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, let alone my noble friends Lord Bottomley and Lord Dean of Beswick who have set out the case against what has happened in the past few years. I would not necessarily say that it has occurred throughout all this Government's 10 years, but it has done so to an increasing extent as the Government have seemed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, to want to centralise power at a time when, in my view, it is so unhealthy.
We have seen that in a number of respects. I think that the undermining of local government is the most important one. This is not a party political issue because, in spite of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with an excellent brief, it is clear that the Government wish to undermine the powers and authority of local government. That is resented as much by Conservatives in local
716
government as it is by Labour and the other parties. This is not a party political issue; it is a fact that simply cannot be denied.
I suppose the main reason why this House is still waiting for a response to the Griffiths Report on community care is because Sir Roy Griffiths, in the mind of the Prime Minister, made the great mistake of suggesting that more authority should be given to elected local authorities, who should be the lead authorities. Therefore, we have gone for more than a year without having an answer because the Government cannot decide how to go against the validity of the argument put forward by Sir Roy Griffiths and yet they do not feel that they can go along with that argument.
We have seen—it has been mentioned bya number of noble Lords—that the quality of people coming into local government has been affected. That is what disturbs me most. Much is now done and said to discourage young and able people from joining local government because, in a sense, they are being undermined. The same applies to the trade union movement. If you marginalise people, if you reduce the extent to which they are consulted and they are brought on to non-elected committees, you push people into a position of being either defensive or—by way of showing their feelings—aggressive. It does no good to our national life to undermine local democracy or the relationship that exists between the trade union movement and society in general.
The same applies for the professions. It would appear that from time to time the Prime Minister picks on a new group of people to be attacked and isolated. The professions include doctors and nurses in the health service, and I shall come to the health service in a moment. The latest victim is the Bar which is under attack from the Prime Minister. The effect is felt not only by the professions but within the universities that produce the members of the professions. It is divisive in our national life and it is very unhealthy.
In general terms, the assumption that all quangoes are wrong or unnecessary is incorrect. There are many good examples—the BBC was mentioned and the Countryside Commission is another—where clearly there is work to be done by people with commitment, dedication, knowledge and skill who do not necessarily need to be elected.
In most of the time at my disposal I want to refer to the National Health Service and the proposals made by the Government which, in my view, go a long way to reduce even that degree of responsibility which exists at present; and there is not much of that. The Government plan to remove any element of democracy in the National Health Service. In my experience of over 42 years, the National Health Service has gained enormously not just from the active participation of elected members of local authorities serving on health authorities but from the lay participation of a wide range of people, including many in this House, who have played a role on health authorities. My fear is that it will all go, and that all the emphasis and power will lie with managers and administrators often receiving inflated salaries and earning much more, it would seem, than many people now working in the health service.

717
There is a degree of patronage right now, of course, but I do not intend to go into the details of that. What have the Government proposed? First, they have proposed opted-out hospitals—or self-governing hospitals, if the Government prefer that description—freed from the scrutiny of health authorities and of local authorities. Who will have the power in these new authorities? The chair will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and the rest of the board either appointed by the Secretary of State or by the region which is itself appointed by the Secretary of State. All power lies with the Secretary of State. Freedom to choose will be denied to patients. The administrators will direct patients to hospitals where the administrators, not the doctors, will have negotiated the cheapest possible contracts.
The second proposal is for practice budgets for GPs. That will deny doctors the clinical freedom that they have always had. But that will provide no way in which they are to be supervised by any elected authority, or themselves to elect representatives to any other authority.
The third proposal is to reorganise the family practitioner committees. They will be cut down to size. Who will appoint the chairman? The Secretary of State is appointed to appoint the chairman. In the case of the other 10 it will be the regional health authorities who, as I have said, are appointed by the Secretary of State. There is written into this proposal all power to go centrally to the Secretary of State. The fourth proposal is that the Secretary of State proposes to sack all the elected members of the health authorities. Apparently some will be replaced by non-elected businessmen. That proposal is justified on the ground that it will free local decision-making from being influenced by political prejudice or lobbied by special interest groups. I find that very disturbing.
In the field of the health service that I am discussing at the moment, it is vitally important that health authorities should be responsible to local community groups. Sometimes they may act as pressure groups. The idea that we should try to isolate those who have authority from the pressure of normal public opinion goes against any principle of democracy that I know. I believe that this centralisation and concentration of all power at the centre is patronage at its worst. It should be stopped before it goes any further.
I wish to raise another point that worries me very much. I am concerned about the whole system of decision-making at the present time. Perhaps I may put the NHS proposals in a wider perspective. The case I want to make principally against the Prime Minister but also those Ministers who act in the same way, is that the normal decision-making process seems to be in the course of change. As a Minister in four government departments for over 10 years I know that there has been a long and honoured tradition applied by both parties, until Mrs. Thatcher took over, that the Government should seek to rule by consent. To achieve that consent you need wide consultation with the
718
professions and within the Civil Service. Obviously an independent Civil Service is available to provide guidance to Ministers. But I hear that increasingly Ministers take decisions without reference to their civil servants and that the civil servants are put in the position of complying and not being consulted. There is no sense of partnership that has always seemed to be so important as regards the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Now there appears to be a great degree of alienation; namely, "Don't argue, do as your are told".
I believe that is very disturbing. Similarly, the NHS proposals were brought forward without any consultation whatever with the professionals, be they doctors, nurses or the professions supplementary to medicine. I find this a very disturbing situation. Ideas are served up by what I call rather crackpot institutions such as the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies. Those ideas appear eventually either amended by Ministers or as they were presented. It means that there is no serious discussion by those people who have to carry out the proposals that have been put forward. The mood of those who work in the health service has not been improved by some of the insults that have been thrown by Ministers at the professionals who work in the National Health Service.
I feel that we are not only facing a challenge to local authorities and their independence and their ability to respond to the wishes of those who elect them at local level, but we are seeing the arrogance of power that is creating divisions within our society that I believe are very dangerous indeed. The conflict that is now being promoted between the Government and the professionals is a very dangerous one. It was quite right that reference should be made by two noble Lords to the writings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who spoke of the elective dictatorship. I believe that the most telling point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, was when he said with great emphasis that it is a strange situation in which this picture, as seen by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, should come about from the Right and not from the Left.
Increasingly and every day that goes by I am happy to think that the remaining time that this Government have in power will be limited. But I hope that they will not do so much damage to relations with sections of our society like local government, the trade unions, the professions and society in general, that it will be difficult to recreate any sense of unity within it.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in responding to this Motion I, like many other noble Lords, was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for pointing out to a certain extent the irony of debating this particular Motion within your Lordships' House. I can assure the noble Lord that I am in the difficult position of benefiting neither from patronage nor from the battlefield. I suppose I fall somewhere in between.

719
Perhaps I may make it clear that government policy since 1979 has been to control the growth of non-departmental public bodies. By non-departmental public bodies I mean bodies that have a role in the processes of national government but are not government departments. The key factors of such bodies are that Ministers appoint all or most of the members and have the power to establish the body and to wind it up. The Prime Minister restated government policy on 28th January 1988, saying that for some particular tasks, non-departmental public bodies can be the most appropriate and cost-effective solution but that the Government will continue to resist proposals for new bodies unless this can be clearly demonstrated within a strict framework of financial and management control.
There were 1,648 non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1st April 1988. This represented a net increase of five over the previous year, but a net reduction of 519 or 24 per cent. since 1979. Your Lordships will see therefore that this Motion is based on a misconception concerning the growth of such bodies. The fact is that there has been a major decrease in their number since 1979.
I believe I am right in saying that both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, suggested that the bodies that we have set up are much weightier than the ones that we have abolished. My noble friend Lord Rippon pointed out his bird fanciers in St. James's Park.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: No, my Lords, bird watchers!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do apologise. One can easily swap examples. In addition to the number of significant individual bodies, I can point to major reductions in the number of new town development corporations and as a result of the transfer of responsibility for industrial training bodies, to the industries which have the main interest in their activities. Moreover, a major result of the government's privatisation programme has been that some of the country's largest industries and corporations have returned to the private sector.
I scarcely need to stress in this place that Parliament is the supreme institution in our affairs. The elected national government brings proposals for new bodies or adjustments of functions between central and local government and elected and appointed bodies to Parliament on the basis of their manifesto. Much as we respect and value local government we cannot accept the doctrine that local government has an alternative mandate to central government. I should perhaps remind your Lordships that local government in Britain spends 25 per cent. of public expenditure, 10 per cent. of gross national product and has over 2.5 million employees; a number, interestingly, that is scarcely different from the figure that existed in 1979. So that those who suggest that local government is about to expire or has been appallingly savaged by our policies, are rather wide of the mark.
As noble Lords will know, the Government believe it is essential that we have an efficient and accountable system of local government in this country.
720
That is not to say however that local government is always the appropriate organisation for carrying out statutory functions; indeed for many it would be the wrong option. What one has to do is to look at each situation on its merits and entrust the function to the body best suited for the purpose. The point is demonstrated if one looks at a selection of the bodies created by Parliament within the past few years.
Seven residuary bodies were appointed on the demise of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Abolition of those authorities meant a range of decisions needed to be taken quickly, on debt management, superannuation, legal liabilities and the disposal of surplus property. It would be naive to suggest that in London, for example, the 33 London boroughs would have been able to reach unanimous agreement on these issues. What was clearly required was a single administrative body which could take an independent view on the action necessary to wind up the affairs of the abolished authorities. This is what the Government did. Similar bodies were set up in the metropolitan areas and they have worked well.
In the metropolitan areas other than London, the districts were sometimes able to agree on a lead district to take responsibility on their behalf for functions like debt or superannuation. This is a tribute to the working relationship between residuary bodies and districts and their mutual wish to do a good job.
The success of the Government's strategy in establishing the residuary bodies speaks for itself. More than £420 million of capital receipts from the sale of surplus property will have been distributed to successor authorities by the end of this financial year, with more to come. It has been an enormous task to identify and shake out the thousands of surplus properties which had been mothballed for many years by authorities which sometimes did not even know what they owned. We also estimate that more than £280 million in reserve balances will also have been distributed. This could not have been accomplished but for the very nature of the residuary body transitional organisations. These were set up with a single objective; efficiently to wind up the affairs of the abolished authorities and then wind themselves up within the shortest possible period, leaving the London boroughs and metropolitan districts with the benefits.
One residuary body—Tyne and Wear—wound up last Autumn, and South Yorkshire should go in the next few months. All are on timetable for completion of the purposes for which they were established, and, in the main, with the full co-operation of the local authorities in their areas.
I should like to turn to the Audit Commission, as I think it is a good example of the successes so-called "non-elected bodies" can achieve. Even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had a few kind words to say about the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission was established in 1982, really for three reasons. First, we wanted to create an independent body responsible for local government audit with powers and duties laid on it by Parliament. Secondly, we wished to end the practice whereby local authorities could appoint their own auditors so that

721
there could be no question of the auditor's independence. Thirdly, the Government saw a need to strengthen and widen the audit function, particularly so as to bring in a proper concern for value for money.
The Audit Commission has, in our view, been a resounding success. It has achieved an improvement in the standards of local government audit through greater involvement of the private sector, through clear guidance and good management of the audit function, and through effective quality control. At the same time the district audit service has been invigorated both by competition from outside and by the commission's management training and monitoring of standards.
It is probably in the area of securing value for money, however, that the commission has made its most distinctive impact on local government. The commission's auditors had, by the end of March 1988, identified potential value improvements at individual local authorities worth some £750 million per year of which £220 million per annum has been fulfilled. These resources would have been sufficient to fund, say, up to 30,000 additional sheltered housing places in a financial year. The Audit Commission is, I accept, a non-elected body. It shows, however, just what can be achieved by such expertise.
Perhaps I may also say a few words about urban development corporations, which were drawn to our attention by several noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lord Bellwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They are single-minded organisations with a statutory duty to secure the regeneration of their run-down inner city areas. They combine statutory powers and public funding with the private sector experience of their boards and are therefore effective agencies for urban renewal.
It may be said that functions should have been given to local authorities instead. However, local authorities have wide remits and are not designed specifically to tackle urban regeneration, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin pointed out. Other priorities may take precedence over urban renewal. An urban development corporation on the other hand is able to concentrate exclusively from the very start on the task of regeneration in a way that a local authority could not. We see the work of urban development corporations as complementing the work of local authorities. The corporations are encouraged to co-operate with local authorities, and I am pleased to say that relations with local authorities are generally good. Notable improvements have been achieved in co-operation with previously unhelpful authorities. For example, in the London Docklands, housing scheme arrangements have been agreed with local boroughs, including the refurbishment and provision of new sites.
I entirely agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin about the improvement in the relationship of Liverpool city council and its agreement to consultations with the Merseyside board to fill a longstanding council vacancy on the board.
722
Urban development corporations are accountable through Ministers to Parliament. They are subject to rigorous monitoring and audit procedures. Each urban development corporation has to submit an annual report to Parliament. Under the terms of the legislation setting them up, they are required to draw up codes of consultation with local authorities on general strategy and specific planning applications. In summary it seems to me that they co-exist well with local authorities.
Your Lordships may have had in mind non-elected bodies in the health service. This matter was brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. As I explained during the debate in this House on 22nd February, delegation of authority is a central theme of the White Paper Working for Patients. Ministers can indicate the overall direction of policy in the NHS, but they cannot and should not seek to define in detail how the implementation of these policies is managed locally. It is in accordance with this principle that the Government are proposing to slim down the membership of health authorities, and ensure that the actual managers and people from the local community are members. Community health councils will be retained as a channel for local consumer views, and health authority meetings will be open to the public as now.
The creation of NHS hospital trusts and the self-governing hospitals which they will manage is another important step in decentralising responsibility. Responsibility for hospital management and its decentralisation is a key feature. The trusts will stand close to their local communities. They will have community membership, issue annual reports and hold annual meetings to report on their progress. They will be in a position to tap local pride and identification with the hospital. Their managers will also have greater freedom to respond to the needs of patients in a more appropriate way.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, the Minister is emphasising the importance of local opinion. Why then are the Government turning off the directly elected representatives of the people?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall come to that point a little later if my noble friend will agree to that.
We believe that the changes will provide the opportunity for enterprise, initiative and enthusiasm in the health service and are the opposite of a government seeking to establish more centralised power for themselves. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on the occasion of the Statement on the White Paper—I have no hesitation in saying it again in answer to my noble friend Lord Rippon—one has to look at the whole of the pie and not just at part of it. The whole pie which we propose is a massive operation in decentralisation and doing and trying to achieve exactly what my noble friend Lord Rippon suggested that we should be doing.
It was perhaps inevitable that the water industry should be raised in this debate. When the water authorities were first created under the 1973 Water Act, they were fairly large bodies, with most of their

723
members appointed by local authorities. I shall not go into too much detail today because as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be aware, we shall have a great deal of opportunity in the coming months to go thoroughly over this ground.
The local authority appointments to the water authorities ceased under the Water Act 1983, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Rippon. That Act reduced board memberships in the interest of greater efficiency. The water authorities were to operate less like local authorities and more like the boards of private sector companies and other nationalised industries.
Even since 1983 the climate has changed. It is now widely accepted that basic services such as gas and telecommunications are best provided by the private sector; with the public sector doing what it does best—regulating in the public interest. The Government will no longer make appointments to the boardrooms of this industry.
However, privatisation also requires an independent watchdog with teeth. Here we have an example of a new quango on the way, but one for which we have no sense of guilt whatever. It will ensure that we have clearer rivers and bathing waters. And it needs an economic regulator to ensure that price rises are limited to fair levels. These economic and environmental watchdogs need to be organised on a national basis, to carry out proper comparisons of the performance of up to 39 companies. Those regulators will therefore be appointed by the Government and will be the people best qualified to do the job. They will be supported by a regional network of advisory committees which will ensure that there is every opportunity for general public and local government input. Those are sound arrangements for the organisation of an industry in which the public needs to have confidence. But we will have plenty of opportunity to reassure ourselves of that fact over the coming months.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does it concern or trouble him that present showings in opinion polls indicate that roughly 12 per cent. of the population support privatisation of water and roughly 15 per cent. seem to support the Government's proposals as regards the health service?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most interested in the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Indeed, I quite understand what he is saying. I find when I go around the country to address meetings that when I arrive people are uncertain about the issue of water. Interestingly, by the time I leave, they are not only much more certain, but they are also much happier after they have heard what I have said. I am not indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that what I said will in any way be a national earth shattering change; but I do say to him is that when the issues are clearly understood, a very different understanding is attached to them than that which he perceives in the polls which he mentioned.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way once again. I should like to
724
ask him who is to choose the best people? Further, why are the Government the only people to choose the best people? Can local people not choose them for themselves?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the difficulty about answering that question is that it is very much horses for courses because I am not quite sure to which groups or bodies the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is referring——
Lord Ennals: Any!
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is aware, there will in fact be an element of self-appointment with the hospital trusts, if and when they come to be set up.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also addressed the position, as he felt it to be, of government interfering—if that was the word—in housing policy. In view of what he said, I think it is right to comment on the housing action trusts which I perceive he would view as part of that example. We believe that what we are setting up will improve the homes and the lives of tenants in their areas. The changes are necessary as there are some particularly difficult council estates which present problems that are beyond the local authority's capacity to deal with. Housing action trusts will be single-minded bodies which will be able to concentrate all their efforts on tackling such problems.
I should perhaps remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I was on these Benches only last year when he proposed an amendment, which subsequently became another amendment. That amendment ensures, by reason of election, that no housing action trust will take place without that happening.
I shall now try to answer some of the points which were raised specifically during the debate this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, drew the attention of the House to the position of efficiency combined with Mussolini. We agree that efficiency is not the greatest or the only social good. But when resources are limited—and they always are—a pound saved by cutting out inefficiency is a pound which could be given to a deserving and needy person.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, although he is not present in the Chamber, raised the point about the situation which exists in——
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has apologised for his absence.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I know that he cannot be here; but I was intending to answer his point in any event because it has a broader implication. His point concerned what he referred to as the "plc-ing" of Enfield Council. I think it is fair to say that that council is an elected authority. It sees its job as being an attempt to be enablers. Of course members of the council will have to go before their electorate again. However, I do not think that that is the case with a plc. The members were elected, they will have a different view and they will have to present

725
themselves again for re-election. Further, if they are successful—which I hope they are—they will be re-elected.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned the issue of political affiliations and the public appointments unit. I entirely endorse what my noble friend said on the matter; namely, that there is no mention of political affiliation. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said that we could see people's political affiliations elsewhere. That of course is true; but the principle which exists within the Cabinet Office is that there is no question of anything other than ability and recommendation being part of that list.
The noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, drew to our attention the fact that public bodies are not accountable and operate "behind closed doors"—I believe that they were the words he used. It is possible that the noble Lord ignores the fact that public bodies have to publish annual reports, that they are open to parliamentary scrutiny and that Government Ministers are accountable to Parliament just as they are accountable for appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, kindly said that he would only raise a couple of specific points concerning G-Mex for which he is hoping to have a fuller and longer debate on another occasion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it was not G-Mex; it was the residuary body and the way it is behaving. I should like to know whether the body is exceeding the duties which it was supposed to be carrying out. If that is so, I should like to know what the Government propose to do about it? Further, what will happen concerning its future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I referred to G-Mex because in all previous discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, we have described it as such, before going into the finer points. We believe that the residuary body has been remarkably successful. Indeed, the Government support its efforts in getting on to finish the job. As regards the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, concerning what will happen from hereon, I can assure him on that specific point that the residuary body will be wound-up later this year and it will hand over the public sector interests in the Manchester Central Station companies to the 10 districts. Further, the residuary body will have no role and it will be entirely for the districts to decide who sits on the board and who holds executive office. I hope that that answer satisfies the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, asked me for a definition of the word "vicious". My answer is that it is rather like looking down a telescope from different ends: the view can be different. The last point raised by noble Lords from both sides of the House concerned the quality of future candidates standing for local government. I can only answer that in one limited way—that is, from my own personal experience. My mother is standing for election to the county council for the first time in her career in the forthcoming May elections.
726
In closing, I can only reiterate that we believe we have made a contribution towards reducing the number of quangos in the country. Further, we believe that there is a misconception that the setting up of bodies is in some sense undemocratic. The Government's actions give effect to the wishes of the people who elected them with a majority. Moreover, the Government continue to be answerable to Parliament, and to the electorate, for what they do. That includes justifying the decision to set up new bodies and the appointments made to them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he will deal with the point about democratic decentralisation made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, which he said that he would answer. Will he give one instance of where the Government have decentralised to a democratic body any power that was previously under the control of local authorities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at this late point my best answer is to refer the noble Lord to what I said in my Statement on the health service White Paper which clearly covers the point that he raised.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my formal task is to thank all noble Lords including even the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who have taken part in the debate. I do that with complete sincerity. The debate has given me a great deal of pleasure. I gained especial pleasure from the contributions from three former Secretaries of State. My noble friend Lord Ennals made the point about the health service, which was not only unanswerable but unanswered, that all locally elected participation in it has been withdrawn. Despite prompting from his noble friend Lord Rippon, the Minister made no attempt to answer that point. It remains on the record as an accusation which cannot be denied and which the Government made no attempt to deny.
I also much enjoyed the intervention of two former Secretaries of State for the Environment. The one, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, shooting down in flames the second, the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, who appeared to think that because a set of procedures was laid down in letters from Secretaries to the Cabinet, that somehow meant that there was no political intervention in public sector appointments. If he will believe that, he will believe anything.
A most extraordinary argument was advanced by a number of noble Lords: that somehow the privatisation programme was reducing the influence of central government and increasing local democracy, which is what the Motion was about. Of course, the privatisation programme in itself in no way gives any greater power to locally elected representatives, the people, the consumers or anyone other than the shareholders of the new public limited companies. The fact that watchdog bodies have to be set up to supervise those new public limited companies is evidence of that fact.

727
The point we came down to in the debate was that traditionally in this country—the House knows this above all—there has been an establishment which has sought to fight against radical change by fair means or foul. Labour governments have had to fight that establishment. They have not always succeeded as well as they should have done. They have had to fight bitter opposition from those entrenched in the professions, big business and all other elements of the establishment.
This Conservative Government, faced with an establishment which was in some ways hostile to some of their more radical objectives, have found that the establishment has rolled over to allow its tummy to be tickled. It has found that the Prime Minister has administered a few sharp jabs to the solar plexus. It is an interesting matter for us to observe. It has given us no confidence that the Government have any genuine concern for local democracy; for the plurality of power in our society; or any genuine evidence that the accusations that were made in the Motion, supported by my noble friends, have been answered adequately. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Policies
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the effects of Her Majesty's Government's social policies, particularly among young people, the poorly paid and the elderly; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is no area of policy where the philosophical division between this side of the House and the Government is more pronounced than in the field of social policy. I therefore believe that the debate is likely to be controversial. I make no apology for that, because I believe that it is an important subject. The Government have made their policies clear. Their philosophy of deregulation and of the so-called enterprise culture pervades almost all the legislation that comes before your Lordships' House. It is a massive departure from the policies of previous governments, since the war.
A series of so-called social security reforms has substantially modified the whole system of social insurance that the Government inherited in 1979. The contributory social insurance scheme designed by Beveridge was intended to provide protection for all employees against the principal insecurities of working life: unemployment, sickness and accident, and to provide for retirement.
In the 1960s and 1970s there were further improvements in the social insurance system through the introduction of earnings-related contributions and benefits so that earnings-related supplements became payable for a short time during unemployment and sickness.
The mid-1970s also saw the introduction of the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) with all-party support at that time. In the 1980s, those earnings related benefits have been abolished. The
728
Government at first intended to abolish SERPS. Opposition to that proposal prevented it from happening, although SERPS has been undermined to a great extent in the hope of encouraging private personal pension schemes.
In addition, we are witnessing a considerable tightening up of conditions for claiming unemployment benefit. If adopted, the new Social Security Bill will mean that claimants will have to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work rather than merely being available for work. The Government have a clear intention that unemployed people should be compelled to take whatever jobs are on offer, despite inadequacy or poor pay.
The result of those moves has been that more people have been forced onto means-tested benefits. The Government's view is that it is better to target resources. We have heard that argument many times in the House; but social insurance has great advantages over means-testing. It is cheaper to administer. It preserves claimants' sense of independence. A wide contribution base has the advantage of spreading the risks across the working population. National insurance sought to achieve that aim by bringing all workers within a single comprehensive system. Beveridge also envisaged that there should be a tripartite system of contribution with the national exchequer contributing part of the cost. Since 1981 however, the Treasury contribution has been progressively diminished and in the new Social Security Bill it is proposed that it should be withdrawn altogether.
It is clear that since 1981 the Government have been gradually running down the social insurance scheme with a view to pushing people into means-tested benefits. As already indicated however, such benefits are expensive to administer and take up, especially among the elderly, tends to be low.
When we look at the effect of social policies on the elderly, we see that two-thirds of pensioner householders still rely on state pensions and means-tested benefits for the greater part of their income. Until 1980, pensions were uprated in line with the higher of the retail prices index or earnings. In 1980 that earnings link was broken with devastating consequences for pensioner incomes. As earnings have steadily risen, pensioners have fallen further behind.
The state pension from April 1989 would be £53.30 for a single person and £82.25 for a married couple had that link been sustained. The actual figures are £43.60 and £69.80, which represent only four-fifths of those amounts. Of course it will be said that the recent Budget contained some benefits for the elderly. We must all be glad that the earnings rule, so much detested, is to go, but tax concessions on the purchases of private health insurance for the elderly is unlikely to benefit poor pensioners or their families. Without an adequate state pension, the majority, who have little or no independent income, must have recourse to social security benefits. Those benefits have themselves been subject to a number of changes that have affected the income of the elderly. For example, last April supplementary benefit was replaced by income support, as a result of the passage of the Social Security Act 1986. Under

729
supplementary benefit people could in some circumstances claim special additions for heating, laundry and dietary needs. These were not carried over into income support, with the result that for many claimants the amount they received was less than they would have had under supplementary benefit Transitional protection was made available for some 1.4 million people, but they received no increase to compensate for increases in the cost of living.
An estimated 200,000 pensioners receiving transitional payments will receive no increase in income when benefits are uprated and a further 300,000 will not receive the full increase. I am indebted for this information to Age Concern, an organisation that does a great deal in this area. It tells me that it has received many inquiries from confused and angry pensioners. I very much hope that something will be done about this unacceptable situation.
Then there is the matter of community care. Demographic changes, of which we are all much aware, indicate that a major effort needs to be made to ensure that care is available for the elderly and infirm. Age Concern has told me that it is deeply worried about the cost of caring for elderly people in private residential homes. Estimates for 1988–89 suggest that the cost will be in the order of £1 billion, representing a 40-fold increase since 1980. Income support levels are often inadequate to meet the cost of care and what, asks Age Concern, is happening about the Griffiths Report?—a point also raised in the preceding debate.
We must not forget the role of government policies for housing, heating, transport, consumer and leisure services in ensuring that the needs of elderly people are met. Access to these would be improved if all elderly people had sufficient income to exercise choice in their expenditure and to participate fully in the life of the community. Sadly, this is far from being the case.
When we come to the poorly paid, also mentioned in my Motion, it has to be understood that the problem here is a very large one. By no means everyone is benefiting from the alleged economic revival. We all rejoice in reduced unemployment. High rates of unemployment add to the pressure on individuals and their unions. There is a very strong argument that the existence of large-scale unemployment has been responsible for what the Government term improved industrial relations—in other words, people are prepared to put up with conditions they would not put up with otherwise—rather than successive tranches of employment legislation. Much of the new employment, on the Government's own figures, is part-time since such jobs are counted as full-time in official statistics. Changes in the social security claiming rules have repeatedly affected the statistics, as we have often said in this House, making it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons between now and 1979 when unemployment—however it is looked at—was very much less.
It is estimated that around 5 million people in the UK are dependent to some extent on state benefits. Supplementary benefit was itself a not very adequate
730
means of providing support. The indications are that income support is even less. As far as the social fund is concerned, the criticism that it would turn out to be unfair and unreasonable appears to have been correct. Social fund payments, predominantly in the form of loans rather than grants, have forced people to choose between getting into debt with DSS loans (at repayment levels of around 15 per cent. deducted from the claimant's benefits) or going to loan sharks with very high interest rates or else doing without essentials. The voluntary organisations with which I am in touch predict that loan repayment problems emerging this summer with claimants unable to subsist on the residue of benefits will be very substantial.
Some benefits such as family credits have been increased as a matter of policy. It seems to be the Government's view that this subsidises low paying employers. However, child benefit which would be of particular assistance to low paid families, has been frozen at the old level and has actually risen by less than prices since 1978–79.
It is here that we have heard and will probably hear again a great deal about targeting of benefit, but a relevant amendment was successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in this House. Incidentally, perhaps I may say how sorry we are on these Benches to learn that the noble Lord is seriously ill, otherwise I am sure that he would have been here today. We very much miss the considerable expertise that he brings to bear on these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was successful in moving an amendment in your Lordships' House last year when the Social Security Bill was before the House. That was moved quite specifically on the basis that whatever the wording said—and it referred to "reviewing"—it nevertheless meant that the benefit should be annually uprated. But uprating has not yet occurred and it is scandalous that it has not done so. This is at a time when we are told that there is an economic revival.
I need hardly go over in detail the arguments we have repeatedly advanced on this side of the House—although I am sure that a number of my noble friends will do so—that child benefit replaced tax allowances then available to everybody; that the absence of means testing ensures a high take-up; and that in many poor families it is the only income upon which a mother can rely. I shall simply say that I think that the Government have a moral obligation to uprate this benefit and should do so.
We have discussed previously in your Lordships' House the proposals contained in the Government's consultative paper on wages councils. The intention is to abolish the wages councils. The Government seem intent upon abolishing whatever minimal protection against exploitation exists. However, membership of the EC may well result in our having to make some minimum wage provision. This may be introduced across the Community to prevent what is known as "social dumping"—the movement of jobs towards regions and countries of low pay and poor employment protection.
As I said earlier, the Government seem to believe that family credit will make up for poor pay. But

731
why should employers who cannot or will not pay a decent wage be subsidised in this way? Whether this is desirable even within the Government's own objectives is debatable. It can be argued that dependence upon cheap labour provides a way in which inefficient producers and obsolete technologies can survive and compete. It is in any event surely better that workers should be enabled to earn a living wage rather than have inadequate wages subsidised by social benefit.
Finally, there is a growing and justifiable concern about the fate of young people from deprived backgrounds, particularly the 16 to 18 year-olds. Many families on low wages or suffering from the effects of unemployment simply cannot afford to keep these young people at home, or else there is a break-up of family life itself. The Government's policy is clearly to try to ensure that such young people are kept at home with their families and either get a job or a YTS place. However, YTS places are not as available in some parts of the country as we had been led to imagine. I am informed, for example, that in November in Manchester 13,000 young people wanted YTS places which were not available.
Young people who leave home find themselves in a cruel dilemma. If they are homeless, they cannot get a job. Without a job, they remain homeless. It is estimated that some 50,000 young people are homeless in London but nobody knows the real figure. The Government's policy of deregulating the rented housing sector is likely to make the situation worse rather than better. It is true that the Government have recently promised some amelioration. Clearly something urgently needs to be done and I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he replies precisely what the Government have in mind in this area.
As in the case of other vulnerable groups, young people from deprived backgrounds have not benefited from government policies. The so-called "trickle down" effect has simply not happened. If somebody was well off to start with, he has remained well off or become richer. If he was poor he has remained poor or has become poorer.
Of course, one hesitates to call the Government's social policies a failure. It depends what the objective was in the first place. If the creation of an enterprise culture means creating a society where the ruthless and unscrupulous derive the greatest benefit then clearly the Government's policies have been successful. If the intention is to create an entrepreneurial paradise of a flexible labour market with a supply of cheap labour, with weakened unions and no employment protection and with social benefits so poor or so humiliating for people to claim that they will work for very little rather than be reliant upon them, then the Government's policy is being very successful. But that is not the kind of image that wins elections. We are supposed to be a caring and civilised society, so policy must not be presented in such stark terms. We on the Opposition Benches have a duty to expose the policy, and the results of it for what it is. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure are other Members of your Lordships' House, to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. She started by saying that her remarks would probably be controversial. Her speech lived up to that promise in the sense that she made many severe criticisms of the social policy of the Government. However, she was not as radical as I would have been, had I ever been in a position to do anything about this matter. I shall not pursue that line at the present time simply because I have mentioned it before and each time the Minister who was due to reply squashed it quite properly. My proposals were always regarded as far too expensive a solution and far too widely tax-based.
In dealing with social policy—I take this as a general debate—all governments face a number of problems. The first is that we have the contributory flat-rate benefit system introduced by Beveridge in the 1940s. Therefore we are stuck with a system in which most benefits and pensions are issued as of grace and not of right. By that I mean that, unlike a directly actuarial system which could probably have been introduced at that time, the up-rating of benefits and pensions and the introduction of new pensions have all been dependent to the greatest extent on the generosity of the current taxpayer, if one can put it that way. That will present very significant problems in the future. Most of us are already aware of those problems.
The second problem was that the system needed modification. All the modifications led to considerable complications. The first of those, incidentally, was that the system itself became changed. It was never possible thereafter for it to be actuarial. Someone made a calculation, which I think was repeated in The Economist, that if one considers the number of variations and changes in benefits prior to the 1986 Act, one sees there have been 476 different variations. That is quite something to find one's way through.
Similar difficulties arise as regards income, whether it be low income, high income or any other rate of income. As everybody knows, any wage dispute or argument about incomes hinges on whether one is referring to gross income, net income, net disposable income or net income with deductions, and what the deductions entail. I point out to the noble Baroness that the minimum wage to which she referred is theoretically somewhat attractive. The theory that no one should fall below a certain level of payment for work done is attractive. However, the problem is that minimum wages lead to loss of jobs. That is one of the great difficulties which those who advocate such solutions find when they try to introduce such policies.
In a mixed economy it is inevitable that there will be different levels of earnings and these will extend through quite a wide range. It is useful to use the term "low pay" only in one sense; that is, that one identifies a particular section of the population who, although working, must be protected from any particular penalty as a result of fiscal or benefit change. The problem with the definition of poverty

733
is a matter of statistics. The Low Pay Unit is often mentioned. That unit uses a methodological system which results in a greater number of poor people whenever benefits are up-rated. That is not very helpful from the point of view of producing solutions to the problem. In my view the poverty trap and the high marginal rate of tax at which people enter the system is far more significant. That is why I welcome very much the changes introduced in the recent Budget. They proceed in the right direction in this regard.
National insurance contributions which bring in something in the order of 70 to 75 per cent. of the level of income that income tax brings in, have been changed. That means that for the first time since the introduction of the contributory welfare system in the 1940s, we have the lowest cost of entry to the contributory system; it is approximately 86p. That is the lowest figure in over 40 years. That factor and the further reduction in the standard rate, which one hopes will follow, is probably of greater help to the lower paid than almost anything else. However, I accept the argument that the raising of thresholds as well as the lowering of rates will also be of some benefit. I do not say that this is a total answer, but I think it is of some use.
We must target our remarks in this debate as we cannot cover the whole field in the time allotted. Therefore I shall refer quickly to the elderly. I think the noble Baroness was a little unfair to the Government. In fact the levels of return to pensioners are something in the order of 7 to 10 per cent. higher now than they were at the beginning of the decade relative to average earnings. The return in real terms has gone up by approximately 3 per cent. per annum compared with 3 per cent. during the whole period that the party of the noble Baroness was in government.
Pensions represent the largest section of costs in the social budget. Clearly, with the rising numbers of elderly, the situation will become very serious within 10 to 20 years. I suggest there are three possible alternative approaches to solving this problem. There is the present approach, which includes the fiscal reliefs and the changes made in personal pension policies. Approximately 1 million personal pensions have been taken out since 1988. Then there is the pluralistic method used in the United States. I deplore that method because it leaves so many people out. Also there is the insurance system with an actuarial element. That system is very attractive to our Continental neighbours. That system would take 20 to 30 years to introduce, but I encourage the Government strongly to move towards that system, as I fear that unless the burden on taxpayers is dealt with during that period of time, the cost of social benefits will hit the buffers of taxpayers' resistance.
Although I said I would prefer another system, what I would like to see is a Tory Government who, having already tackled major industrial and economic problems, are now looking at the professions, making as their top priority for the next period of government the determination to concentrate on the problems we are discussing
734
tonight. I should like to see them putting in place long-term viable plans for their greater alleviation, if not their ultimate solution.
5.57 p.m
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for the sympathetic remarks she made about my noble friend Lord Banks. He is indeed an expert in the matters we are discussing and would have undertaken very much better than I the task I shall now endeavour to perform.
The Motion before us is welcome both for its intrinsic importance and because it has provided the House with its first opportunity to comment on the impact that last week's Budget will have on the Government's social policies. Clearly in the time available to me it is not possible to deal with all three of the effects of the policies to which the Motion refers. Therefore, I shall concentrate almost entirely on the poorly paid.
I, too, welcome the Chancellor's proposals to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners and to extend the scope of the age allowance to include those aged over 75. However, we should bear in mind that the first of those concessions will be of no help at all to the two-thirds of pensioners who are too poor to pay tax. Moreover, I am most unhappy about the proposal that taxpayers generally should subsidise private medical care for people over retirement age to the tune of £40 million in 1990 to 1991. That is money which will benefit people who already have the means to look after themselves in this special way. That money should be spent instead on improving the National Health Service.
I welcome also, so far as they go, the proposed changes in national insurance contributions. However, although people on average earnings stand to benefit from these proposals by about £3 per week, most of the low paid will gain very much less. Moreover, the reduction in the real value of personal allowances, which are to be raised by only the minimum of 6.8 per cent. required by law, will have the effect of compelling even more low paid people to pay tax.
It is also regrettable, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that child benefit is once more to be frozen at £7.25 a week. That benefit of course replaced child tax allowance. Since: 1983 it has decreased in real terms by 13 per cent., whereas over the same period other tax allowances have increased by 22 per cent. Given the disappointing take-up of family credit, I wish the Chancellor had taken the opportunity of the Budget to say that he proposed next autumn to restore the real value of child benefit.
However, I would most welcome a statement that, in the light of responses the Government have received to their consultative document, they have decided to abandon their plans to do away with wages councils. It is discouraging that in that document comments were invited not on an open question as to whether wages councils should be retained, reformed or done away with., but on:
"the Government's view that the time has come for the councils to be abolished".

735
Despite that lead, and the brief consultation period of only two months (including Christmas and the New Year), I understand that the great majority of respondents—more than half of them employers'organisations—opposed complete abolition of the system. They included the British Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel Management. The CBI said that some of its members believed that wages councils could fulfil a useful role in the sectors in which they operate.
It does not follow that such organisations are satisfied with the present system. A number of them accept that there are anomalies and anachronisms within it. However, they regard that not as a justification for ending the system but as a reason for rationalising it to make it more effective. Abolition of wages councils would leave this country as the only member of the European Community without any legally enforceable minimum wage protection for the low paid. Already the number of inspectors employed to oversee payments has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. since 1979. Despite that, figures recently released by the Wages Inspectorate showed that last year there was an increase of more than 25 per cent. in illegal payments.
The White Paper Employment for the 1990s states:
"In the Government's view there are real questions about whether the councils have been giving sufficient weight to the impact of settlements on jobs".
That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. No evidence was given in the document to support that contention. There is, however, plenty of evidence of an overall increase in the United Kingdom, particularly in the service sector.
In its submission the IPM said:
"Whatever reasons the Government may have for abolishing wages councils the alleged deficiencies of national bargaining do not stand much scrutiny. We are certainly not convinced by the conventional wisdom that national pay bargaining leads to higher wage rates being set than is the case under regional or local arrangements. Indeed, all the evidence shows that where employers have decentralised pay bargaining it is more from a desire to pay more in tight labour markets than from any intention to pay less in other areas".
In relation to the argument that low pay can be supplemented through social security, the IPM expressed the view that government assistance to employees on low wages amounts to a hidden subsidy for inefficient employers. The BIM made it plain in its response to the consultative document that it does not favour this new dependency culture. If the Government insist on enforcing their view that wages councils should be abolished, at least let them take the step only following a sector by sector review which takes account of the views of the parties concerned.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has to say about the future of wages councils, and indeed about other matters raised by noble Lords in this very timely debate.
6.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is all too easy to have a debate in which the charge that some people are worse off is countered by the charge that other people are better off, and therefore, it is argued, the system must be delivering the goods. The
736
truth is that the social security changes of a year ago have made some people better off, both relatively and in real terms, but others have suffered a relative and real deterioration, notably in the categories mentioned by the noble Baroness in her Motion and opening speech. Further, as we have heard, those changes are not simply the result of miscalculation, although they have been in some cases, but rather the consequence of a deliberate choice of priorities. That choice of priorities is bound to lead to a still further widening of the gap between the majority of the relatively well off in our society and a minority who are becoming poorer.
When the prosperity of the country is as great as it is, one has to ask whether such a harsh and growing discrepancy is not morally unacceptable, socially unwise and economically wasteful. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trafford—and I wish we could debate the matter—whether an actuarial system, which might have been a better road to go down originally, does not still require that those who have contribute to the needs of those who do not have, as we all take for granted in our own families. It seems strange that we find it so difficult to accept the necessity for that, in whatever form, in the community as a whole.
One of the major thrusts of this shift of policy rests on the premise that the so-called welfare state has become extravagant, sluggish and inefficient and needs to be replaced by a much more accurate and defined system of targeting benefits on those most in need. Two major issues need to be addressed with urgency arising from that priority. First, what is the basis on which minimum benefits are ultimately calculated, and how much is included in that figure for long-term needs such as the replacement of clothing, items of household equipment, furnishing and so on? I ask that question because we have heard that under the old system there used to be single payments for just such needs, assessed after a personal interview and visit and often with some attempt at a genuinely welfare dimension to the claim. Now we have the social fund, under which such requests must nearly always be dealt with by a loan and within a budget for the particular DHSS office.
Guidelines lay down that such loans can be up to 15 per cent. Is the benefit figure calculated so that basic needs, to keep people above the poverty level, will be covered leaving a surplus of 15 per cent. for those rather major items? Or is it just a guess? Or is it a device to frighten off all but the most hard-pressed? If so, what does one then make of the refusal of social fund officers to give some claimants any loan at all on the grounds that they are too poor to pay it back?
I should therefore like to ask the Minister whether he will press his department to give very careful consideration to ameliorating the operation of the social fund by at least enabling officers to give a mix of loan and grant, or outright grants in some cases, where they deem this advisable and in the best interests of the family or person concerned. I ask him as a matter of urgency to assess how much it is reasonable to expect people to pay back out of such very basic incomes at a time when inflation is again

737
on the increase and moving ahead of the level of benefit, as it nearly always does.
The second point is that social security payments, as we all know, do not stand alone. They have to be seen in a context. That context includes a steady shift towards indirect taxation and unsubsidised or low subsidy charges for a whole range of basic goods and services—water, electricity, gas, rents, transport, part of the community charge and so on. The evidence makes clear that basic rates of benefit are not keeping pace with those other costs and that they also bear particularly heavily on the elderly and low paid. Indirect taxation usually does. The high rate of taper on income support and family credit prolongs the existence of a substantial poverty trap. The recent change in national insurance contributions for the low paid has not made all that much difference for many people.
As we know, one of the great merits of child benefit is that it has cushioned many mothers and children against the worst effects of the poverty trap. It has helped people through the difficult first stage after unemployment, for example. Another great merit is that it has reached everyone and been cheap to administer. I am aware that family credit, when it is taken up, now helps some families more than did the previous payment, but, as noble Lords know, it has become necessary to launch a £5 million campaign—if the information is right—to try to reach people to tell them that they are entitled to that particular benefit. It still requires a form of 12 pages, which is quite a long one.
When comfortably-off people appear on television telling us that they do not need child benefit—which is of course true—I wonder whether they would be equally ready to appear on television to tell us that they do not need mortgage interest tax relief. Both are universal benefits. It is hypocritical to attack the one while defending the other, especially when child benefit reaches a far greater number of families and children in need—the next generation and the people most at risk in our society—for all sorts of reasons and when one remembers that mortgage interest tax relief is partly responsible for inflating the cost of housing in recent years.
The General Synod of the Church of England recently passed a Motion by 270 votes to none asking Her Majesty's Government to review the workings of the Social Security Act after 12 months with a view to ameliorating the lot of those who can be seen to have drifted deeper into the poverty trap. That Motion originated in Carlisle and not in London; considerable anxiety was expressed and many examples adduced from all over the country. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give us some assurance that that review will not only be undertaken in his department but that we shall be allowed to hear about it.
We know that all forms of social security are imperfect, but at a time of increasing national wealth there is surely scope for fairer and more generous treatment, at least for the least well off in our society, and—I stress this point—for a more flexible system to meet genuine and urgent need.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to whom we are so indebted, has cast her net wide. I shall concentrate on only one area of her Motion; namely, community care, particularly as it affects the elderly.
It is estimated that the number of people over 75 will have increased by almost a million between 1981 and 2001, yet there was no mention of that in the White Paper on the National Health Service reform. The Government have had the Griffiths Report for over a year—the noble Baroness mentioned that point—but a curious paralysis seems to have come over them in that field since they have so far issued no response. One of the reasons for that delay may be the recommendation to concentrate most of the power and responsibility in the hands of local authorities, which runs contrary to the Government's obsession with clipping local government's wings. On those grounds, they may reject the main thrust of the Griffiths Report and, conversely, on the same grounds the Labour Party may welcome it. But, if so, it will be rejected or welcomed—as the case may be—for the wrong reasons as there are legitimate grounds for worry over the Griffiths proposals irrespective of the Government's feud with local authorities. Those worries concern the rights of individuals.
There are some sensible proposals in the Griffiths Report. The proposal for a single point of access to community care, which the SDP has long advocated, is one of them. However, in our view that need not and should not imply a single body with overall responsibility both for provision and finding of care, especially if the new system is to be based on a budgetary approach to community care—as Griffiths proposes—rather than on entitlement.
That is the crunch point. Under Griffiths, earmarked resources would be canalised through local government in the form of specific grants to social services departments, but it would be a difficult and complex procedure for local authorities to arrive at the level of funds necessary to fulfil the community care needs of their areas. There will have to be a per capita formula for assessing needs, based on the numbers of the elderly, mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people living within a local authority's boundaries, which would involve an expensive and intrusive bureaucracy. In addition, the grant or budget, when calculated, would be cash limited and would therefore incur exactly the same problems as the social fund—to which the right reverend Prelate referred—but on a much larger scale. Furthermore, the fixed budget would seem to conflict with Griffiths' proper concern that people should receive individually tailored packages of care, if only because there would be an inevitable bias against residential care as a result of budgetary constraints. Griffiths argues that there are many people currently in residential care who should not be there, yet research carried out by the Social Policy Research Unit at York concluded that 93 per cent. of those in residential care out of a sample of 200 were appropriately placed.

739
However, to my mind, the most telling of all criticisms of the Griffiths Report is that it militates against individual choice. The report plumps for a system which allows the professionals to make all the important decisions. As noble Lords may recall, the Wagner Committee report, Residential Care: A Positive Choice, published in March 1988, wanted the social security system to provide support either at home or in a home, thereby giving people the choice irrespective of income. The Wagner Committee was attracted, as I am, to the concept of a community care allowance to be given to those with special needs to enable them to procure care services of their choice. That would mean that there would still be a prominent role for the social security system, contrary to the main recommendations of the Griffiths Report.
The objection of cost may be advanced against continued social security funding for the elderly in long-stay accommodation, but in the nature of things social security is open-ended because it deals with unforeseeable contingencies, such as the death of a daughter or spouse, which make continued independence impossible. It must also be remembered that social security payments for long-stay accommodation are strictly means tested. Those who have saved throughout their lives have to run down their capital almost to zero before the DSS steps in. In my belief, that system of means-tested entitlement and individual choice should be preserved along with the local authority provision of crucial services, such as home helps and meals, for those who remain at home.
In that field the Griffiths Report, following the Audit Commission, makes a sound recommendation that there should be a new occupation of community carer to act as care assistant and provide much needed respite care for informal carers. I hope that the Government will accept that recommendation. The dimension of home care is of the utmost importance. At the last census, just over 91 per cent. of persons over the age of 75 were living in private households, 41 per cent. of whom were living alone. As the number of people in that age group increases, it is important that that pattern should continue to be possible. In our view, a vital step forward would be the introduction of a carer's allowance which we have long championed. It would have to be more widely available than the stringently tested attendance allowance and invalid care allowance, but it would make a vast difference to people pinned down almost beyond endurance by the care of elderly relatives and would save on escalating residential costs.
Such a stimulus to home care would be the single most cost-effective and humane step that the Government could take in that field. Will the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, tell us this evening whether the Government will take such a step and, if not, why not? The Government are open to severe criticism for sitting on the Griffiths Report for a year, but if the result of that prolonged gestation is a properly financed framework for community care which takes the best from Griffiths but preserves the rights and interests of the individual, no doubt we
740
shall be able to welcome it and even to forgive the Government. However, we are still in the dark as to the Government's intentions. Will the noble Lord lighten our darkness this evening or at least give us a date when the Government will do so?
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we must be thankful for the luck that has allowed the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to have her success in the draw for this extremely well-timed debate which comes so soon after the Budget. In spite of what strike me as very welcome changes to national insurance contributions, and the abolition of pensioner earning rules, we still have earnings and poverty traps at the bottom end of the tax scale which provide real unfairness and disincentives. In the year of my birth—which was 1938—only about 3,800,000 people paid income tax. Under the benign and light taxing influence of the late Lord Attlee, 14 million paid income tax. Under the even more benign and lighter taxing influence of my right honourable friend the present First Lord of the Treasury, 21 million people pay income tax.
Income tax now starts at £86 a week for a married man. That is about a third of average earnings, which are £236 a week. The national insurance contribution starts at £43 a week, which is 20 per cent. of that average wage.
What is frightening about the new and very welcome reduction in the amount paid on the first £43 of earnings is that, when the wage grows from £43 to £44 a week, the tax on the successive pound is 86 per cent., or 230 per cent. compared with the tax paid by the Chairman of British Oxygen on the top slice of his income. I believe that that is a funny way to tax people. It is admittedly only on the first pound. But what is also frightening is that the cost of abolishing that tuppence on the first £43 earned is £800 million. This illustrates how infinitely complicated it is to get the bottom end of the tax and benefit system into decent shape.
Thresholds are still far too low, as I have said, and act as a major disincentive to work openly. They are a great encouragement to the black economy. If one encourages the black economy one encourages unscrupulous employers to pay low wages because they have the people who receive those wages under a threat of some form of blackmail. The Government have recognised the disincentive effect of high tax on high incomes and have correctly, and with great courage, dealt with that disincentive. They have also seen the disincentive and unattractive effect on pensioners of having an earnings rule. They have now abolished it. Therefore can they not apply the same medicine to lower incomes?
On the great majority of wages below about £15,000 per year the combined tax and national insurance contribution is 34 per cent. It is called a national insurance contribution but it is no more a national insurance contribution than is sitting in a Bedouin tent. What has happened is that we have been told by Parliament that 9 per cent. will be raised on people's incomes. That is a tax; it is not an insurance contribution.

741
Above £15,000 to the starting point of the higher tax band—which is now £20,700—there is no 9 per cent. NIC. In effect therefore those people pay only 25 per cent. tax. Equally those who earn their income from stocks and shares, or interests on savings or deposit accounts, or whatever it may be, pay only 25 per cent. tax. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, or perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who pointed out that national insurance raises about two-thirds of the amount that income tax does. I am advocating that the two should be combined. We must therefore go to an integrated tax benefit system devoid of all the distorting allowances.
One man's mortgage tax relief, pension fund relief or freedom from capital gains tax on his house when multiplied up, amounts in lost tax to between £15,000 million and £20,000 million a year. All those allowances have to be paid by someone else's tax.
I am not a redistributor of income. I like the idea of having better off people. However, I should like to have the system changed so that the poor are properly looked after. In my view, we can do that only with a tax benefit system which is paid for by general revenue. I see no possible merit in a quasi-insurance cum tax system which was invented by a megalomaniac Prussian with a moustache. It was not invented by the late Lord Beveridge or that great son of Lord Beveridge, Norman Fowler. It was invented by Bismarck to keep the Silesian working class loyal to Prussian rearmament before the 1870s war with France. If my right honourable friend can upset the lawyers and the doctors, surely she can have a good old bash at Bismarck's memory.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have listened with much pleasure to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I should not like him to think that in any sharp remarks that I make about his Government I am referring to him or, for that matter, to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. I count it a privilege to support the brilliant speech of my noble friend Lady Turner, who is so expert in these matters. Since the late Lord Beveridge was mentioned, I was, I suppose before Norman Fowler was born, personal assistant to Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, for three years. But those days are long since past. I shall confine myself to matters with which I am more familiar.
We are all aware now of what Thatcherism means. Some Members in this House presumably love it; I do not know who they are. Some of us certainly detest it. Most of us know what it is by this time. It stands above all for the appeal to self-interest. Appeal to self-interest is all very well in its way. We could hardly get up in the morning, say our prayers or clean our teeth without some element of self-interest entering our activities. However, it can be grossly overdone as it is by Thatcherism.
It is a system that has brought great rewards to a few gentlemen, perhaps not many, who work in the city and in related places. It has been very cruel to those who do not fit in. I am not thinking only of those at the lowest end of the scale. I have been
742
reading a fascinating new autobiography by the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson, in which he revealed that in 1987 it was made plain to him that he was not on speaking terms with the Leader of his Party, the present Prime Minister. It is in his book. A little earlier he had offered his services for some voluntary work and had been told that he could expect "no preferment from me". It is therefore possible even for an eminent lawyer——
Lord Trafford: My Lords, perhaps I may——
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may finish my sentence. It is possible therefore for an eminent lawyer and a Conservative Peer to be treated with contempt by the Leader of the Thatcherites.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I should not like the noble Earl to make a mistake. That was not a statement made by the Leader of the Party but by a then civil servant. It is quoted in the book of the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it was conveyed to him by the present noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, Secretary to the Cabinet, on behalf of the Leader of the Party. It is rather a quibble to say that she did not come to him personally and say, "You can expect no preferment from me." That is rather too much to expect. However, let us leave that issue aside for the moment. I have only the same amount of time as everyone else.
I shall turn to the young. I might have dealt with the old but I discussed them on the last occasion and the subject has been dealt with most effectively by the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. There is therefore no opportunity for me to add anything of value, though I repeat the tributes to Age Concern which I paid last time. Its service in this field are unique.
I was instrumental in starting a centre for young people in Soho 20 years ago, which now receives about 3,000 young people a year. Although I am no longer in an executive role, I am still a patron. I have made enquiries from some of those who work there and some of them have worked there almost thoughout the Thatcher period. They agree that the situation of the young homeless is worse now than it has been in their recollection. It is worth pausing to ask ourselves why that should be, when we are told again and again that we are living in a period of economic success. At times there are references to the economic miracle. There is not much sign of a miracle in a visit to the New Horizon youth centre in Macklin Street—at least it is a miracle the wrong way round. It is some kind of miracle to produce so much wealth for a certain number and so much poverty for others, as the right reverend Prelate explained.
I will take a minute or so to say how things look from that end and just to describe the measures. I do not have time to develop the consequences but I can explain how the young workers, who devote their lives to helping the young homeless, see matters. They point out the following changes that have occurred that have damaged the young people whom

743
they are trying to help. The changes began with the board and lodging regulations in 1985, which limited the length of time that under-25's were allowed to spend in any one place. Secondly, there was a social security upper limit for bed and breakfast. Thirdly, the situation was worsened in April 1988 when the DHSS was instructed to pay supplementary benefit two weeks in arrears. I cannot remember what possible arguments were introduced for that. Fourthly, the benefits were cut for the under-25s and, fifthly, in September 1988 compulsory youth training schemes were introduced for 16 to 18 year-olds without scant concern for the impact on the young people. There were five changes. I just mention them, but I do not have time to spell out the consequences. They represent an evil policy of which this country should be ashamed.
6.34 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this important debate this evening. I have discovered that out of a population of over 56½ million people, 10 million are of pensionable age. Inhouseholds which had one or more persons aged 65 or over living in them, 36 per cent. lived on their own, 52 per cent. lived with their spouse, 12 per cent. lived with their children or relatives and 1 per cent. lived with a non-relative. Of those receiving care from family, friends or neighbours, 76 per cent. were elderly, of which 15 per cent. were over 85.
Elderly people occupy 43 per cent. of the unfit housing in England, which means that resources must be found for repairs and improvements. We have been fortunate that the past two winters have been mild; but we must be prepared for severe conditions in the future and not have to worry about it when it is far too late. Pensioners spend one and a half times more on fuel than the rest of the population. We appreciate the Government's help during the winter when conditions reach a certain level, but it does not have to be freezing for people to endure hardship living in a draughty and damp environment.
We welcomed the Prime Minister's statement last week that the health service is not to be privatised. The proposal that GPs should be given their own budget for buying hospital treatment for patients and the purchasing of drugs is of doubtful value. The elderly are the largest users of the health service. The Government intend to make it easier for patients to move from one practice to another. In rural areas, where there is often only one practice, this is impossible. Also in rural areas, such as the South-West, a high proportion of the population is elderly, and the work of local doctors is stretched enough already in caring for these people.
We welcome the abolition of the earnings rule. That is right and fair for pensioners who wish to continue working without being penalised. The Chancellor described that as a long-overdue reform. He is right, but it has taken 10 years for the Government to implement a promise made. I wish that the measure had come into force many years ago. We also welcome the extension of the age allowance to those who are aged 75 or over. The Chancellor's
744
prediction of increasing inflation is alarming for all of us, but even more so for the lower paid and the elderly members of our society.
With reference to the community charge which will soon be with us, Age Concern is worried because of the elderly people on low incomes who live in areas where the charge will be high. It is estimated that one third of pensioner couples will be worse off than under the domestic rate system.
Pensioners in residential and nursing homes are exempt, which is welcoming news, but those moving in and out of care or living in sheltered accommodation will be liable. It must be difficult continually to monitor, assess and account for the movement of these people, and it will incur unnecessary cost of time and money. Will the Minister give some thought to that problem?
It is a worrying situation for households where an elderly person or persons is being cared for by relatives or friends living under the same roof. I believe that there are 6 million carers in this country of one kind or another, and 2 million of these have no help at all, often causing great hardship to them and to the person they are looking after. I should like to see more publicity in order to make people aware of the various kinds of help that they can receive, not only in terms of financial aid, but also of a practical and physical nature.
Last week's Budget has improved the conditions of the elderly. I hope that next month a generous increase for pensioners will be announced. That would be most welcome. It would be of great comfort if fewer people had to claim supplementary benefit in order to keep up their standard of living.
I should like to give a special thanks to those voluntary organisations and the people who give their free time to visit and involve themselves with caring for the elderly. Their contribution is invaluable and of great comfort to those in need. The more the elderly are in contact with the outside and the greater the encouragement to be in contact, the greater the chance for them to leade a worthwhile satisfying life.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lady Turner for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject this afternoon. I also congratulate her on a clear and comprehensive introduction to the debate. For my part, I shall make a few comments on how social policies are affecting perhaps the most vulnerable group of all: those young people, girls and boys, who through no possible fault of their own lack a sound and protective family base.
It is a fact that although leaving home is for most young people a natural process, for some there is no choice about when they leave. Many have been in care and at the age of 18, or often earlier, they must manage on their own. For others unemployment, poverty, over-crowding, physical or sexual abuse, or simply family tensions with step-parents and so on, mean that remaining at home is not a real option.
In considering the problems which face those young people, how are Government policies

745
compensating them for the lack of family support which they so badly need? Here the answer is very stark. So far as a clear policy towards these young people can be discerned, it would seem to suggest the view that young people need controlling and coercing into becoming useful citizens rather than being given the extra support that they so obviously need. Their chances to make a choice among training work or voluntary work or improving their educational qualifications is severely restricted. There is no guarantee that an adequate safety net will be provided for those who need it.
To illustrate what I mean I should like to give a few examples of the problems faced by young people using a day centre for young homeless people. I follow the line set by my noble friend Lord Longford. The centre is called London Connection and I was partly instrumental in setting it up. It is situated behind St. Martins-in-the-Fields. We must remember that Shelter estimated that in 1987 there would be between 25,000 and 40,00 young people sleeping rough. There is little doubt that since then accommodation options for young people with little money have been seriously curtailed.
As has already been mentioned, bed and breakfast accommodation is no longer a stopgap. The private rented market has contracted over a number of years and the new Housing Act, without the protection of fair rents or housing benefit thresholds set at appropriate levels, will mean that young people will find no opportunity with private landlords. The sale of council housing means that boroughs, which at one time were far-sighted enough to treat young people as vulnerable under the Housing and Homeless Persons Act, no longer have the housing units to maintain them. Finally, hostel places for those lucky enough to find them are being placed in jepoardy by proposals to remove payments for essential service costs.
An additional cause of concern for those who work with young people is the devastating impact which they anticipate the poll tax will bring. It is feared that homelessness among young people will become an increasing burden when low-income families can no longer support their children.
The cumulative effect as seen by the youth workers at the London Connection day centre is that more young people are being forced into insecure forms of accommodation—for example, friends' floors, squatting (which is becoming increasingly dangerous with the growth of the protection racket) and sleeping out.
When visiting the centre I have often seen the young people who come in after a night out. They are totally exhausted and immediately go to sleep. When lying asleep they look incredibly young; indeed, they are incredibly young. Many are only 14 or 15 years old and they have finally found a place of safety offering warmth and someone who will protect them from the dangers of a big city.
It has also been noticed that there has been a rapid deterioration in the motivation and self-respect which exists among young people who must suffer such difficulties. There is also increasing evidence
746
that the street culture is developing as they become more disaffected with the system which they rightly consider provides nothing for them.
The majority of young people who go to London Connection are willing to take a place on YTS. However, they are unable to retail it unless they have accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Turner has said, they are caught in aCatch-22 situation of not having the resources to find accommodation until they are established on a scheme. For those people under the age of 18 not on a YTS course or in work, the removal of the safety net has led to extreme hardship. One sees involvement in begging and in other means of survival, and the rapid criminalisation of young people in such a situation is extremely worrying. Last Wednesday we talked about the increase in crime among young people. This Wednesday we are giving some of the reasons for that increase.
In my final minute I should like to illustrate what I have said by giving a few examples of the young people who visit the centre. There is a young man aged 18 who came out of care. lie is currently homeless while waiting for a housing association flat. He left his last job because he believed that it was unsafe—and I expect that it was. Consequently his income support has been reduced. He has been told that when housing is available he must make a contribution to his rates of 20 per cent. from his income support. One asks oneself how he will cope on £27 per fortnight to cover rates, food, travel and so forth.
There is a boy aged 17 years from Manchester. He came to London to look for work having finished a YTS course in Manchester. There was no chance of obtaining the job he hoped to find in London. He was accepted on a YTS course in south London but was unable to find local accommodation. He had to leave temporary night shelter accommodation, slept rough and tried to continue on his YTS course. That indicates that many young people are trying to deal with impossible situations. He found it too difficult to cope and is now sleeping rough and begging money to survive.
A girl aged 17 from London is currently attending college taking a B-tech course and trying to live without benefit. The course is 27 hours per week; that is six hours over the limit for income support. Although housing benefit is being paid to the hostel where she is staying, she receives no income support. She is having to survive on £7 grant per week for travel, clothes and so forth, and may have to leave the course because of financial difficulties.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but in view of the time limit I wonder whether she can draw her remarks to a close.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I was doing so, but as my noble friend Lord Blease did not speak, I thought that I might avail myself of one extra minute.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, that may be acceptable but perhaps the noble Baroness could prepare to draw her remarks to a close.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl has taken two minutes to tell my noble friend that!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I mentioned to my noble friend that I might use an extra minute. I have reached the end of my remarks and should like to draw the situation to the Minister's attention in the hope that he will take it to heart.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, the few noble Lords present must warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for providing the opportunity to act not as a revising Chamber but as a forum of discussion. It is a role which inevitably recedes amidst much controversial legislation.
Although I sit on the Government Benches I have serious misgivings about major aspects of policy, but for reasons different from those of the noble Baroness. Inflation, which has hardly been mentioned today, exceeds 7 per cent. That is a result of lax monetary policy. Even with 7 per cent. inflation, money loses half its value in 10 years. The hardships and injustices of inflation are familiar. So are the difficulties of people with modest means to protect themselves. To the extent that some are protected others suffer more. That is why Keynes wrote:
"We must make it a prime object of deliberate state policy that the standard of value…should be kept stable".
As though inflation were not bad enough, in spite of last week's budget the low paid are still heavily taxed. This is inequitable and encourages moonlighting, as was noted and developed in the speech of my noble friend Lord Onslow. His speech was serious, informative and yet also amusing. The earnings rule for pensioners was abolished only the other day. Wages councils, which deny employment to needy people, still operate as does the dock labour scheme. More important, the malfunctioning of the housing market bears hardest on the young and elderly. It is exacerbated by local authorities with unused or underused housing stock, or those which refuse planning permission to convert houses into flats for fear of gentrification.
Universal child benefits include payments to the rich. The DHSS pursues well-to-do women who do not take them up. Labour and SLD critics rarely address those shortcomings. Instead they urge more indiscriminate spending for the unemployed and the poor. For my part, failure to address those issues is most disturbing and unexpected. Mrs. Thatcher has been Prime Minister continuously for longer than anyone—since before 1832—yet these and other anomalies persist.
I am baffled by some statistics. Currently approximately 250,000 people are recorded as being unemployed in Greater London. Yet department stores, restaurants, shops and hotels, persistently advertise vacancies at all levels, many requiring neither experience nor training. One advertisement I saw read:
"If you can walk, talk, read or write we have a job for you".
748
Statistics about poverty are also baffling. How can millions be at or near subsistence level when in 1985 97 per cent. of all households had television, 86 per cent. in colour? State-provided or subsidised necessities continue amid well-nigh universal ownership of colour television and other appliances
This encourages reliance on handouts and undermines the family. Some of this is visible as, for instance, widespread child neglect and extensive criminality. Some aspects of the latter figured in the debate last Monday initiated by my noble friend Lord Reay. We see the emergence of an underclass of people with little respect for themselves, their families or others, and who in turn enjoy little respect, but evoke a mixture of condescension and fear. These matters are discussed much more openly in the United States than here. Black American professors have written eloquently on the destructive effect of state welfare on the negro family.
There are in this country, sadly, large numbers in real distress—emotional, mental and financial distress—who cannot help themselves and may not be helped by relatives or friends. There are old and lonely people, disabled or mentally disturbed or chronically ill people, victims of rapid change or of inflation and other categories. But state-provided benefits often cannot reach such people. Non-politicised charities, religious bodies and other voluntary activities can do so much more effectively, together perhaps with specialised government agencies. But insistence on universal benefits and allegations of mass poverty and unemployment divert attention and resources from helping the distressed.
Until recently there was in Britain a strong tradition of self-reliance. I once lived in Pimlico, then a very poor area, and saw the strenuous, even heroic, efforts of many people to provide for their families and to help themselves and others. Until very recently many people did not claim supplementary or child benefit, even when they knew their entitlements. Most now claim child benefit just because it is available. But some have misgivings because they do not think it right that they should receive taxpayers' money to bring up their children. Self-reliance, self-respect and family responsibility battle against an overwhelming tide of state provision. However tentative some of these observations may be, one conclusion is firm: the supporters of universal welfare payments do not enjoy a monopoly of compassion and understanding of social realities.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Turner for having initiated this debate, allowing us a further opportunity to discuss these important issues. I should also like to add my sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who is not well enough to attend today. He has contributed a great deal over very many years to our debates on these issues in this House. I look forward to him being well enough to resume his place and to give us the benefit of his expertise as soon as possible.
I should like briefly to refer to last Wednesday's debate on crimes of violence and public protection.

749
It was an important, interesting, informative and constructive debate on a subject which is worrying many of us who live in inner city areas. We are becoming more and more alarmed. While I accept that the causes for crime and violence are many and very complex, I remain unconvinced that there is no correlation between unemployment, bad housing, environment or deprivation and crime. There seems to be some doubt about that, according to some of the speeches. There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of many thousands of people that these factors have some influence on the level of crime and violence. I live in inner London in what is called a high-risk area, where car crimes and burglaries are so frequent that unless someone is injured in the course of a crime it is pointless to report it to the police. That only adds to the problems of people living in such areas, and provides incentives for those who engage in crime.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in winding up the debate on 15th March said at col. 300 of Hansard:
"My noble friend said that if criminality becomes the norm and lawfulness becomes eccentricity, black becomes white and you turn your values upside down. I thought that was a graphic description and one which is very true, because once one's values are turned upside down one's sensitivities become capsized and dulled and nobody knows what is right or wrong."
I, with thousands of others, would certainly endorse that, and I would say that we are halfway there already: certainly we are going down that road already. Unless a more realistic approach towards the special problems and needs of policing in the inner-city areas is adopted, and soon, by this Government, the situation will worsen. That of course will be a direct result of government policies.
Thousand of people, as has been said, are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; thousands more are in temporary hostel accommodation; hundreds of thousands are on local authority waiting lists; and people are sleeping rough in our major cities in cardboard boxes in shop doorways and on park benches. Why, in the face of all that, are we building fewer houses now than at any time since 1920? There are one and a quarter million fewer homes available for rent now than there were in 1979, and for every £100 invested in housing in 1979 only £32 was invested in 1988. Why is that, in the face of all those circumstances that exist?
At the moment council tenants all over London are worried sick about the possible effects of the Housing Bill. Representatives of property companies are working very hard on estates, trying to persuade tenants to buy their flats and offering them special endowment polices for the purpose. They are generally exploiting and increasing the fears that already exist among tenants. If time permitted I should like to enlarge on that situation, but there will be other opportunites. One thing is for sure: the predicament of thousands of council tenants as well as of private rented tenants is fairly and squarely a direct result of government polices.
More people are suffering from breakdowns, depressions, drug abuse, alchoholic abuse and
750
associated problems. So I ask: why are voluntary organisations, who do so much sterling work in these areas, being starved of resources at national level and, as a result of financial restrictions on local councils, at the local level as well? Some are being forced to close down and others are having to limit their facilities. We have demonstrated on many occasions the reasons for this state of affairs, and we shall continue to do so.
The same applies to hospitals. There are increased waiting lists, empty beds, unused equipment, threats of closure and now a major upheaval arising from the White Paper on the National Health Service. Add to all these, as has already been said, the imminent effects of the poll tax and we fear that in many areas families with grown-up children living at home will have to pay three or four times as much as their existing rates. Imagine what would have been the result if any council had announced increases of that order in rates in any given year. We all remember the Tory campaigns mounted against far smaller and more easily justifiable increases in the recent past. The effect of this will be to drive more youngsters to leave home; more families will be broken up and all our social problems will be exacerbated. The reactions of people in the next few months, in my view, will leave no one in doubt as to who is to blame for this unnecessary development.
I should like to finish with two points that have already been touched on. The first concerns the funding arrangements for special hostels. I have asked questions about this before. Although I can welcome the Secretary of State's Statement of last Thursday concerning support for this sector, I am left wondering why the Statement is so vague and why it does not seem to offer a satisfactory long-term solution. Why not delay the implementation from October and continue with the present arrangements while the promised consultations are used to hammer out a long-term solution? I should like the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to say something about that.
I should also like to welcome the Government's decision to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners, as other speakers have done. However, the Sunday Telegraph three days ago soured my welcome a little. It said:
"The move may have an altruistic look about it: certainly Britain's pensioners are not complaining. But it is hard economic reality rather than philanthropy which has persuaded the Government to act.
"The reality is that Britain's employers urgently need to woo our rapidly growing elderly population back into the labour market if they are to survive the demographic 'time bomb' on which the country has been sitting since the 'baby boom' of the mid- 1960s."
That is not what the Conservative Party said in its manifestos in 1970, in 1983 or since. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
Having said that—there is much more that I could say—I am convinced that the Government's social policies have amounted to a dramatic reduction in the standard and quality of life of millions of people. I only wish that I had more time to develop my arguments further.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Johnston of Rockport: My Lords, I was both pleased and grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, when in the closing remarks of her opening address she said that she could not claim that the Government's policies were all a failure. Unfortunately, or sadly, the noble Baroness qualified the remark by adding that it all depended on where one started. I should like to dwell on two or three points where I think they have a very good record.
When we first came in, the manifesto committed the new Government to finding ways to simplify the social security system. It had three aims: to restore the incentive to work, to reduce the poverty trap and to bring more help to those in greatest need. In coping with these requirements, the Government's long-term strategy towards the needs of the family culminated in the major reforms of the social security system in April 1988. That is not to say that improvements to the welfare system were not constantly under review. For example, even before these reforms supplementary benefit levels had increased by 6 per cent. ahead of inflation and family income supplement rates for children had increased by 20 per cent. ahead of inflation.
The Government's record on support for the family is proof positive of their intention to continue the financial assistance to low income families and keep it as a top priority. In all, nearly £10 million now goes on help for the family, half on income related benefits, family credit and income support, and half on child benefit. Family credit goes well up the income scale, and steps are being taken to improve its take up.
As noble Lords will know, an announcement made on Monday last stated that some £7 million is to be spent on a nationwide advertising campaign to persuade more people to claim family benefit. Child benefit remains a substantial contribution to the financial upkeep of a family, but uprating it simply spreads the load wider, helping the richer families and not those on family credit and income support. In the hope of getting financial assistance to those whose needs are greatest, £70 million extra will be targeted this year to 1.6 million poorer families and 3 million children. I know that some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches speak in terms implying that child benefit no longer exists, whereas I am sure most people would confirm that it accounts for some 10 per cent. of the 1988–89 social security budget amounting to some £4.5 million. Its value will be reviewed again this autumn.
We have heard many opinions expressed today covering all aspects of the Government's social policies, but one subject has concentrated my mind. It concerns the employment of disabled men and women. While I appreciate that some are too disabled to work, there are some young disabled men and women who, despite their handicaps achieve with adequate training a creditable boost to their morale and to their pocket.
As we all know, we are an ageing society. If the forecasts are right, the number of school leavers will not match the job vacancies available in the future. Would it not be a wonderful chance for us to do
752
something really helpful for the disabled and bring them in as an additional workforce? There are snags to this. Nevertheless, we have to consider their situation today. If they start work, they immediately lose the benefits that they receive covering their incapacity to work—statutory sick pay, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. They do not necessarily lose benefits relating to a medical condition such as mobility allowance and attendance allowance, but the overall loss of benefits as they now stand will act as a frightening deterrent to anyone in their position. I submit that that is wrong. It was an aberration when in 1984 the House voted to disallow the right to buy for disabled people. However, this was rectified in the last housing Bill, as we know.
It is because of all the difficulties facing the disabled that I wish to make a special plea to my noble friend the Minister to consider whether there is some way in which a premium may be granted to those who choose to work. I feel sure that special help given in this way would lift a burden not only from their mind but from the mind of their families too. I believe that they deserve our consideration.
7.6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing the debate. I should like to thank her also for her kind remarks about my noble friend Lord Banks. As his understudy, I am fully aware of how much the debate loses by his absence.
When I was a boy, I learnt to recognise when there had been a great storm out at sea by the flotsam that drifted up on the shore of the Atlantic. Similarly, one recognises disturbances in society by looking at what happens to the social security budget. In particular I believe that one can recognise the failure of many other government policies by the effect that they have on social security figures. The social security budget indicates demographic change, which in many ways must be welcomed. It shows also the effect of a good many government policies. The Government have learnt their lesson in the case of unemployment. Now that the unemployment statistics have been lowered, that effect is reduced.
I am slightly surprised to notice in the Government's public expenditure White Paper that spending on the long-term sick and disabled has increased by 90 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. That made me wonder whether it is really the case that the health service is safe in their hands. I notice the effect on housing benefit of a continually rising cost of housing and the likelihood that that will be exacerbated by the move towards market rents through the Housing Bill. The Government projection is that the number of people in receipt of rent rebate is likely to drop from 3.6 million this year to 3.1 million next year. I wonder whether the effect of government policy may not be to falsify that prediction altogether. I notice that the effect of a 1 per cent. increase in the retail prices index is a cost to the social security budget of £455 million. He is indeed a very expensive Chancellor!
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, made about the generosity of the taxpayer, but in

753
many fields costs have to be met somewhere. I have never been convinced that there is an ultimate net saving by shifting things from the public to the private purse if the net result is that it costs the country more. The noble Lord mentioned the danger of running into buffers. I want to suggest that there are buffers at the other end of the line too and that we may be rather nearer running into those.
The nearest we have in the poorer parts of London to the old style Sherlock Holmes-type agony column are the notice boards in the windows of local tobacconists. In looking at those in Kilburn I first notice the many advertisements for rooms to let but which state "No DHSS". They are not, of course, up to date with the change in the name of the department but, once they are, "No DOSS" will become an even more popular notice.
There is a considerable problem and, one suspects, a considerable waste of money. Keeping people in bed and breakfast accommodation can cost twice as much as a new council flat. I have seen the figure quoted in the Independent that in London the cost for a family of three can be as much as £24,000 a year. I wonder whether that represents value for money.
I cannot deputise for my noble friend Lord Banks without touching on the issue of child benefit. I have a vivid memory of the day when I brought my first child back from hospital. On my fourth agitated visit to the chemist, he shook his head at me and said, "Expensive things, these babies". He was right. If the Government are really concerned about the money going where it is needed, perhaps they will consider the option of uprating the benefit and taxing it. They would then be targeting the money at the people who really need it, who are many, and doing so efficiently.
One of the biggest problems that we must touch upon now is the effect on the young. I understand the case for having people living with their parents. Relations between the young and their parents are much better than they were in the 1960s, and I welcome that, but it is not a universal situation. There are families where people have an allergy to each other and in those cases it is better for the health of both children and parents that they should have the option of being apart. However, it cannot be done on the sort of money available, which could easily be spent in a week in London merely genuinely seeking work—that is extremely expensive to do in London.
If a person cannot live on benefit and cannot find anywhere to live, he may well beg. When I introduced this subject in a Question about the young on social security, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that it was a bit far a field. I beg leave to doubt that. In reading today's Independent, your Lordships may also think of what else people can do when they cannot live on their social security benefit. I wonder whether the oldest profession is not the one in which this Government have done most to increase employment. I will not dwell further on these points, but the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said a great deal on them which demands attention.
754
I must mention also the possibility of crime as one option that those who are destitute can turn to. I ask the Minister whether putting people in that position really is the best way to foster self-respect.
Finally, I should like to touch on one special category of the young, about whom I know something. I refer to students. The position is extremely tight. One of my students put it to me that on the normal grant you can just about afford a pint every other day. That is not destitution but that is the position of someone who is a good manager living in a hall of residence. You do not need much to go wrong to be in severe trouble. The changed need allowance for housing benefit has caused acute hardship among students in London. I hear about that almost every day.
I mention only one other point before I resume my seat—the under-staffing of benefit offices and the difficulties resulting from that. One of my pupils lived close to Broadwater Farm. He referred to one aspect which no paper has yet mentioned. There were delays of six weeks at Broadwater Farm in paying out unemployment benefit. That twice led to the office being sacked. I wonder whether that is a case of saving public money proving in the end a very expensive policy.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lady Turner for initiating this debate. In the minimal time at my disposal I should like to raise one or two topics.
I refer first to the report, Children in Danger Fact File 1989, published by the National Children's Home. That is not a bolshie organisation but a respectable and very knowledgeable institution which is quoted in The Times today. The article states:
"The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Twelve years ago, the top 20 per cent. of households had five times the annual income of the bottom 20 per cent, Now top households have seven times that income.
Poverty and ill-health are inter-related, the organisation says in its annual review of child welfare. 'The health of the nation's children shows itself to be stubbornly attached to class and income. It is hard to be optimistic about a society which seems to be bent on exposing the already disadvantaged to further hardship and danger'".
That is the problem before us tonight.
We have to be brief but I should like to ask the Minister, for whom I have a great respect, how we can continue in a situation of government confusion and inefficiency. The social security commissioners recently upheld four test cases on widows' pensions which, taken together, represent just one example of the muddle in the department. There is confusion about transitional benefits for the disabled and in regard to housing. We heard from the other place last night that there are to be changes in housing benefit. As I understand it, some old people who have lived in their homes for years, their young people having flown the nest, will lose housing benefit because it is held that they should not have a spare room for their grandchildren or for someone to use if either of them becomes ill. That seems to be absolutely brutal and wicked.

755
We do not know what is happening about transitional benefit for disabled people. We do not know what is happening about the differences in housing benefits. We do not know what is going to happen about family credits. We know that the Minister in the other place is seeking to encourage more people to claim. I believe that he should not be doing that but should be abolishing the whole scheme.
Family credit is only partly taken up because people do not like it. It is also poorly taken up because the application questionnaire is so appallingly ridiculous. It has 87 questions in 15 pages. It has the most absurd questions, and that is one of the reasons why there is such a low take-up. Apart from the fact that it has 87 questions and 13 sections, some of the questions are absolutely appalling.
I wish the Minister to tell me how he would deal with one of them. It is in these words:
"If you or your partner are not getting Family Credit now, fill in this form, and send it to us as soon as you can".
Then it states,
"We cannot deal with your claim if you send it in too soon. And if you send it in late you could lose money".
Nowhere else is this situation explained. When the Minister is trying to discover the reasons for the low take-up he might take into consideration the total ridiculousness of these forms. I believe that the reason is that people do not like being means tested for benefits; that is the real answer to this question. When we turn to the question of child benefit, people know that they get it and there is no problem. It is absolutely absurd for the Government to say that money is being wasted on people who do not need it.
When we consider the Budget we find that the personal allowance and the married person's allowance have been increased. There is no question there of money. The married man's allowance is not related to his pay or to his rich wife. Therefore I ask the Minister how this mattter can be worked out. Social security has gone up by 5.9 per cent., but in the Budget the marriage allowance and the personal allowance have gone up by over 6 per cent. Surely that is not fair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was trying to help people on lower incomes. National insurance has to be adjusted so that the contributions are reduced for the poorest people. There has been a great deal of publicity stating that £3.70p would help the lower paid people. I am very modest because I cannot add up. But I have found that if a man or a woman is earning £70 a week, he or she would gain 21p from this change in national insurance. If he is living next-door to a chap who is earning £80 a week, that chap will receive £1.41p. I honestly believe that we need a ladder, and that that is a fair concept. But we have the rungs of the ladder in the wrong place. We need more fundamental changes in the relationship between taxation and national insurance.
I have to shut up very quickly. The child benefit freeze saves the Government £203 million. How much of that money is being re-targeted? Can the
756
Minister say what part of that sum has been put on to family credit, which we know has been very small in its take-up level? Are the Government gaining from this £203 million that they are supposed to have in their pocket because of the freezing of child benefit? I wish also to ask the Minister what he is doing about the social fund. Is it in profit and what is the Minister doing with it? Is he making sure that there are more funds available for people who are really in need?
7.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, if I learnt nothing else in the period when my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary of State for Energy, and I was the spokesman in your Lordships' House, it was the art of timing. I do not recall the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, as a fellow disciple, but the House will recognise her lucky timing in having her debate only eight days after the Budget on which views have emerged on all sides of the Chamber in varying shades of grey, tinged on one or two occasions with the green of envy. All that money wasted on repaying the National Debt, seems to be the theme behind some of the speeches I have heard Opposite. Nonetheless I genuinely congratulate the noble Baroness.
Even though the subject is so wide it means that I am unable to give more than a broad brush response. I shall of course convey your Lordships' thoughts to the most appropriate of my right honourable friends. For instance, I cannot add anything to what my noble friend Lord Hesketh said about community care on 1st February or what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said about crime last Wednesday. Your Lordships will be debating tomorrow the housing benefit paid for under occupied property. For now, I shall only remind the House that local authorities have always had similar provisions.
Why do I start with the Budget? The noble Baroness was good enough to give me notice some time ago that she expected the debate to concentrate on benefits. She is quite right of course. I can think of nowhere else in Whitehall where social policies and prudent monetary control are so inextricably entwined and this year's Budget was indeed a social policy document. Before I develop that theme, I should like to state the Government's overriding belief, in a misquotation:
"Be you ever so humble the state is below you".
It is, in a word, the country's biggest insurance policy, and vast amounts of it are free at the point of use; namely, health care, education, non-contributory benefits and so on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, struck straight at the jugular. I was glad to hear the balanced views of the right reverend Prelate. In 1986 this House approved and improved, in agreement with another place, the Social Security Act—the biggest reform of Social Security since 1948—and in so doing reaffirmed Sir William Beveridge's principles. The Government's objective in putting that legislation

757
forward was to build on the belief that people wanted as far as humanly practicable to be responsible for their own lives and it concentrated more on families with children than ever before. That huge reform was not perfect; nor though was the 1948 Act which over the years had numerous tinkerings by many governments of all persuasions, but surprisingly moving further and further away from the essential simplicity of the original scheme, and becoming more and more expensive to administer using money which would be far more effectively spent on improving benefits.
That reform was implemented in 1988 based on information about the social state of the nation that was already out of date. It was based on figures collected between 1983 and 1986. Today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is setting his hand to the wheel of getting and using up-to-date figures as a basis for future improvements in the benefit system, keeping always in the back of his mind simplicity, efficiency and value for money in its operation.
Two sets of figures are topical. The ones that currently excite your Lordships are those on the take up of family credit. The Government's original forecasts were made in 1987 and were based on the 1983 to 1985 family expenditure surveys—the most up-to-date information available. Assumptions therefore had to be made about what would happen to wage levels and so on by 1988. There was also an assumption that take up would be 60 per cent. What has actually happened is that the numbers are down on our forecasts, but the average award, at some £25 a week, is considerably higher, so that despite the lower numbers we will still be spending more in 1988–89 than in the original estimate—£422 million instead of £400 million. This indicates that those families which are entitled to higher amounts of family credit are indeed coming forward and making their claims.
Recently we have obtained preliminary data from the 1988 family expenditure survey. This very latest information reveals that our estimate of the eligible population was too high, mainly because of increases in earnings levels and employment in the meantime, which are a reflection of our continuing success in stimulating the economy and reducing taxation. There is no question of cutting 250,000 people out of benefit, as suggested by the Sunday Times this week. What has happened is that we have revised our estimates in the light of more up-to-date information. What all this now indicates is that in 1988 take up by numbers was around 50 per cent.—about the same as for family income supplement—and take up by expenditure was 65 per cent.
We shall not allow any sterile argument about statistics to obscure the fact that substantial amounts of extra money are available through family credit. The Government want more working families to come forward and claim the help that is due to them. For this reason we are mounting a major advertising campaign starting in April.
Several noble Lords spoke of low pay and the possible abolition of wages councils. I should tell
758
them that there is no simple link between the low pay of individuals and the low income of households. This occurs because households in which a low paid individual lives often receive income from other sources—unearned income, earnings from other household members and in-work benefits like family credit. So if the distribution of earnings widens or indeed narrows, this does not imply any corresponding movement in the distribution of household income, or in the incidence of poverty, however defined.
There is mounting evidence that young people are receiving adult wages earlier, and there have been reports in the press recently that some firms are giving their young staff higher increases earlier. Compare this with wages councils, which have the opposite and insidious effect. Also, firms cannot indefinitely deny higher grades of worker the same increases as councils require for the lower paid without distorting differentials or inflating wage bills.
From time to time we hear calls for a national minimum wage, or the Council of Europe's decency threshold. There is no such thing as the latter. True, the Council of Europe asked a committee of independent experts to advise on the matter. This advice has never been endorsed by member states, either in the governing committee on the European Social Charter or in the council itself. My noble friend Lord Trafford is right.
Even in its own terms, this so-called decency threshold, as a relative measure of low pay, shares the weaknesses or other definitions which relate low pay to average or median earnings. It has risen in real terms by about 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 in line with the overall growth of earnings because of the artificial distortions of the 1970s'incomes policies. It is therefore not surprising that the numbers paid beneath the threshold should increase since 1979, given this sharp rise in the real value of the threshold and the widening of the earnings distribution.
Not surprisingly, many noble Lords spoke of child benefit. They conveniently forgot, though my noble friend Lord Johnston clearly did not, that in 61 out of 62 months of the previous Labour Administration, there was a lower rate of child support for families with young children than during the whole of this Government's period of office. To increase child benefit by the 45p that index-linking would have meant this year, we would give nothing to those families on income support or family credit because these benefits are adjusted to take child benefit into account. From this April not only will those families get their normal uprating of the income-related child benefit allowances, but in addition we have given an extra 50p per child. Those noble Lords who call for index-linking of child benefit tend to forget the fact that the poorest families stand to gain nothing at all. The rich getting richer, my Lords. Yes, they certainly would.
In that connection, I should like to mention the most unfortunate absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. He persuaded your Lordships during our discussions on the Social Security Bill to pass an amendment—an amendment against the

759
Government—which subsequently I described as tautologous. Another word for it, more normal in parliamentary circles, is otiose. The effect of it was rather worse than the current statutory provision for reviewing child benefit, which my right honourable friend is committed to do in advance of each and every uprating.
On appointment, any social security Minister rapidly becomes like the nicer side of Fagin. My right honourable friend is reviewing the situation; and what reviews they have been. The OPCS reports on the numbers and financial circumstances of disabled people are starting to come through. We should have the complete set by the Summer Recess and be able to establish whether the existing benefits really are reaching their goal. New ones, I can tell my noble friend Lord Johnston and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will be fully investigated. This is a form of targeting of which this House, in my estimation, would fully approve. Against this, it is interesting to note that spending on the sick and disabled in 1983–84 was £4,320 million. It will have doubled by next year. I accept that the figure is in cash terms and not real terms.
Noble Lords have also mentioned the social fund which, contrary to expectations of noble Lords opposite, is working well. Non-repayable community care grants and interest-free budgeting and crisis loans are providing exactly the kind of help that was needed. Loans have reached anticipated levels of expenditure and community care grants have risen steadily to a point where, in January, they exceeded 100 per cent. of anticipated expenditure for that month. It is interesting to note that some people are on their second and third loans from social security benefits.
From April the average amount of money in the fund will be £46 per eligible applicant compared with £39 at the time the current year's allocations were announced. Nearly 800,000 interest-free loans have been made and more than 100,000 community care grants have been awarded. The review system is proving to be a quick and effective means of handling disputed decisions. Reviews are normally completed in the local office within a matter of days rather than the many weeks it took for an appeal to be completed.
Pensioners, of whom the Motion makes mention, have also been targeted. As the House is fully aware, pensioners overall have benefited during the Government's time in office. The average total net income of pensioners has risen on average by 3 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1986 compared with a total of 3 per cent. in the time the party opposite was in power, a point made by my noble friend Lord Trafford.
The Government have acted quickly to help those who are too old to have benefited in the growth of occupational pensions and SERPS. They needed help. In an announcement last November, forgotten, I suspect, by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, we said that pensioners on income support would, if 75 or over, receive £2.50 extra if single and £3.50 extra if a couple. The House will be delighted to know that at the point of introduction in October there
760
will be no erosion of any transitional addition there may be in payment. Because of alignment those changes will also help disabled people over the age of 60 and those on housing benefit. In all, the changes will benefit nearly 2 million single pensioners and couples, including around 100,000 who may now be able to qualify for income support or housing benefit for the first time, at a total cost of near £200 million in a full year.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to refer to the Government's announcement on 28th February that all those women who were widowed in the six months before 11th April 1988 will be treated in exactly the same way as they would have been if their husbands had died in the previous six months. We have gone further than the commissioners decision on the case of Mrs. Doreen Whitbread by extending it to widows with children. I believe that the Government deserve great credit for this.
Only last week, another change was announced. This time it was for the benefit of 16 and 17 year-olds. I do not accept the premise of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that that is evil. Further, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that those youngsters who are entitled to income support but who are forced to live away from home will, from July this year, no longer get the level of benefit appropriate to their age, but the £27.40 a week given to 18 and 24 year-olds. The higher level will also apply to all 16 and 17 year-olds claiming housing benefit who are on YTS or in low paid work.
I cannot condone a system where a very real option for healthy youngsters is to exist mainly on social security benefits. Of course, the object of the reforms was to get away from that situation. Not only has this change of status, so to speak, been given, but we shall be extending entitlement to income support during the child benefit extension period to those 16 and 17 year-olds who are genuinely estranged from their parents. Moreover, payments made by local authorities to young people leaving care will be wholly disregarded for benefit purposes.
While I am on the subject, again last week we announced that at last hostel dewellers were to be put on the same basis as those in board and lodging and bed and breakfast hotels by receiving housing benefit and income support. No one I dare say was very surprised. However, what did surprise some people were the transitional payments—that is to say, exactly the same monies are to be available to individuals so long as they stay in the same hostel—and the protection for the hostel movement as a whole.
Why not delay this? The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is that even with such a guarantee we shall not know exactly how to finance hostels on a long-term basis until we see how the changes work in individual cases.
Perhaps I may mention housing benefit. We have heard a lot about it. But no one on the Opposition Benches has acknowledged the achievements of the Government in this field. Only this Government has had the courage to ensure that for the first time the system provides help on a sensible and consistent basis. We had the courage to reform the system

761
both in 1982–83 and in 1988. The last Labour Government knew that there were problems—the then Supplementary Benefits Commission told them so—but they did not act.
The Government have fulfilled their objectives in reforming the system and fulfilled their commitment to monitor the changes. For the first time help with rent is provided in a way that does not penalise unfairly those in low-paid employment. For the first time everyone on benefit has full protection against reasonable rent rises. For the first time every ratepayer has an interest in the cost of local government. For the first time the taxpayer is not subsidising those who may be richer than he is through having large amounts of savings. But the Government recognised that there were some in vulnerable groups who suffered too sharp a drop in income at the point of change as a result of our fundamental structural reforms. That is why we introduced a transitional payments scheme. And our commitment to keep a close eye on this whole area is demonstrated by the very sensible and sensitive decision my right honourable friend took on 3rd March to extend the closing date for application for transitional payments a further three months to 30th June.
I cannot recall speaking in a debate when the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was also speaking and not having housing mentioned, especially that of local authorities. I too my Lords have seen terrible things in local authority housing and one event that will remain etched on my memory was going to a bed and breakfast place in West London that had been totally burnt out the week before, one occupant having died. I also knew of local authorities with properties empty for more than six months and which still spend over £10,000 a family on bed and breakfast accommodation. I was interested in the figures put forward by the noble Earl on that point. However, it is no part of my brief today to rehearse the arguments which I was using two years and more ago in another political incarnation. However they remain as valid now as they were then, but I am glad to note that down in local government housing departments, helped by the Estate Action Team, things are slowly improving.
No one attempting to do my job could fail fully to share the concern expressed by noble Lords on the plight of homeless people. The Government's overall housing strategy is to widen consumer choice, target resources on areas of greatest need and improve performance and efficiency in the use of local authority stock. The 1988 Housing Act paved the way with provisions to encourage the private rented sector through deregulation of rents. The current Local Government and Housing Bill follows on from this to lay the foundation for the new system of local housing finance which we consider to be an essential step towards improving local authority performance.
I should tell the noble Earl, Lord Grey, that fear of a disease is often much worse than the disease itself. Indeed, that philosophy is proving to be true in relation to the community charge in Scotland. I
762
believe that it will also do so in England. All those measures will provide wider choice and a more efficient housing service for all income groups, including the homeless.
I return now to the Budget, which was indeed a Budget for the people as highlighted by the noble Baroness in her Motion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bauer that inflation is public enemy number one and this has been very definitely a non-inflationary Budget. But it has been a great deal more than that. It has been a very imaginative use of conservatism.
My noble friend Lord Onslow talks of combined tax rates, and I see his point. It is hot the case that the new system implies high marginal rates at earnings slightly above £43, the lower earnings limit. At £44, a person will pay two per cent. of £43—that is 86p—and nine per cent. of the £1 over the £43 per week. That gives him total liability of 95p per week. A person earning £44 a week will gain £1.25 per week from next October. I should also add that the combination of personal tax and national insurance contributions is not a simple matter. Integration would mean either that elderly people, who of course do not pay national insurance charges, would pay more, or that the elderly would be exempted from the combined charge. I think that that would actually cost more to achieve than the benefit which would result.
At the new tax free limit of £53.56 for a single person, from October he will only pay £1.81 in national insurance contributions, itself some 87 pence less than he pays at the moment. At a stroke my Lords, my right honourable friend has simplified the social security system. He has got rid of two of the three steps in the national insurance contributions scheme which can result in pay increases being more than offset by higher contributions, leaving these employees worse off. At 2 per cent. of your income as the gateway to a valuable set of benefits, like unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit, widow's benefits and retirement pensions, the now initial NIC (national insurance contributions) rate is the lowest since the national insurance scheme was restructured in 1975 by, I believe I am right in saying, the right honourable Mrs. Castle. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, complained that a reduction of £1.29 per week to 86 pence at the lower earnings limit is peanuts and that we have benefited the higher earner to the tune of £3 a week. But I would ask the noble Lord to remember two things. First, taken together with the reforms to national insurance contributions introduced in my right honourable friend's 1985 Budget, which helped the lower paid contributor and his employer, everyone will be £3 a week better off from October ——
Baroness Jeger: Everyone?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, everyone; that is, taking the effects of the two Budgets together. Secondly, at £43 a week, net pay will increase by 3 per cent., whereas at the higher earnings limit of £325 per week net pay would only increase by about 1 per cent. due to the Budget.

763
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, made a deep impression on me when all those years ago he talked about the pound in one's pocket. That is how many people measure self-respect these days, however the rest of us may feel. Self-respect is what the Government's policies are all about, and why not?
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he explain to the House why he says that everyone will be £3 a week better off? From the figures which I did him the courtesy of putting to him, many people will be only 21p better off.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that I explained in the closing moments of my rather too long speech, for which I apologise, that I was referring to two Budgets not the one Budget upon which the noble Baroness based her figures.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down again will he remind the House of what his noble friend Lord Hesketh said on 1st February about community care, because some of us were not in the House? As that was the Minister's only reference to the topic, does he not agree that that was a slightly dismissive treatment of a matter which falls squarely within the terms of the Motion? Are we not entitled to a straight answer on the Griffiths Report? It is not a frivolous question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in view of the various things that have been going on in social security over the past year or two and because the debate was time limited, I was within my rights to say that I was unable to add to the recent remarks made by noble friends. So far as it concerns community care, I am sure that the noble Lord will read with interest the debate on the 1st February in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I was asking the Minister to reply to this debate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what my noble friend said on the Griffiths Report, for example, was that announcement would be made shortly. He also pointed out that "shortly" was not as soon as when he used the expression some days previously in answer to a parliamentary Question. Beyond that, I do not believe that it is productive to go tonight.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have participated in what was an extremely interesting debate. It has, as noble Lords have said, covered wide ground because the terms of the Motion were wide. We could probably have gone on for a great deal longer than two-and-a-half hours had we had the time. I am sure that noble Lords could have said a great deal more had they had more than seven minutes each in which to speak.
I noted with interest and some pleasure that only three noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Trafford
764
and Lord Bauer, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—did not agree with the main thrust of the argument that I put forward in my opening address. I should like to thank the Minister for the great amount of detail he put into his reply. I shall read Hansard with interest because there was too much to take in at the one sitting. Nevertheless, his reply did not convince me that the main thrust of my arguments is without cause. It seems to me that he was saying that the social security system that we had before 1986 needed revision, amendment and simplification, and no one on this side of the House has ever argued otherwise. When the social security legislation of 1986 was before your Lordships' House, I remember saying that we accepted that the existing social insurance system needed revision and simplification.
Our arguments have been, and remain, that what has happened to the social security system since then has not resulted in simplification, but, as a number of noble Lords have said, there has been a lack of simplification in certain areas. One of the reasons why family credit has had a low take-up, apart from it being means tested and people not liking means-tested benefits, which I can well understand, is that one has to go through an incredible form-filling exercise before being in sight of receiving benefit. I am glad to learn that the Government intend to do everything that they can, even though that means spending £7 million, to try to persuade people to apply for family credit if they are entitled to it.
As regards the Budget, we are happy that there were some moves in the direction of the low paid. Our argument is that they were minimal. Judging from the way in which the Chancellor presented his Budget and from what was said on the government side about the economic revival and our economic achievements, resources exist to do a great deal more for the low paid than was done in the Budget, which was the thrust of some of our arguments this evening.
As to the arguments on wages councils, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that there is no evidence of which I am aware, or of which anyone else is aware, to show that if we have a minimum wage or wages councils' minima the result is to decrease the number of jobs available. After all, wages councils have existed since the end of the war. They existed during the 1970s and as far as I am aware they did not have the effect of reducing the number of jobs available.
On child benefit, I remain unconvinced by the arguments advanced by the Minister. There is not much point in rehearsing those arguments again this evening. There is a philosophical gulf between the two sides of the House on the whole question of child benefit. The Opposition believe that child benefit should be uprated and that the Government have a moral obligation to uprate it, as I said in my opening address. It is a benefit which has a high take-up. In some poor households it is the only benefit that a mother can count on having. Since it replaced tax allowances anyway, the arguments that have been advanced about it being a benefit that helps the rich as well as the poor are not valid. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether it should be taxed. That

765
is a point at which the Government might look. If it were up-rated and taxed, that would answer the arguments advanced by the Minister.
I am glad to learn that something is being done about widows' pensions. I shall again read Hansard to see precisely what is involved. I am glad, as I said in my opening address, that the Government intend to do something about the 16 to 17 year-olds. The question is whether it will be enough to remove the threat of homelessness from young people in that vulnerable group. Not everyone can be looked after in a family. It would be good if they could be. As we know, we live in an era when there are many broken homes; children may suffer from various kinds of abuse; and when the family home is just not available. There is therefore an obligation on society to look after those young people. I question whether what has so far been proposed will be adequate to do that.
The Minister was self-congratulatory about the social fund; but that does not tie in with information that I have received from a number of voluntary organisations acting in that area. The Child Poverty Action Group has undertaken a survey into how the social fund is operating. Other voluntary organisations have done the same. There are many cases of individuals who have suffered greatly. They were not allowed a loan even for essential items because they were not judged to have the resources to repay it. The replacement of the single payment system by loans from the social fund was not a progressive move. We should have stuck with the single payment arrangements.
That is about as much as we have time for this evening. I should like to repeat my thanks to everyone who participated in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Victoria and Albert Museum
8 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have received from the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum about the recent reorganisation of responsibilities in the museum and about the treatment of the curatorial staff who have been made redundant.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am asking the Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper because the recent events at the Victoria and Albert Museum are of concern to our national museums and galleries here and in Scotland.
The present imbroglio at the Victoria and Albert has its origins in a visit by the National Audit Office investigators. It is a singular irony that the staff poured out their hearts to them, spoke of their frustrations, the backlog of work undone, etc. Their reward was to be pilloried before the Public Accounts Committee and the director abused by those who picked on a woman when they received short change from the robust Yorkshireman, Sir David Wilson, who was defending the British Museum.
I have very considerable sympathy for Mrs. Esteve-Coll after some of the intemperate attacks that have been made upon her. I have sympathy for her because I believe that the deficiencies that she faces are due to the failure of the Government to face those responsibilities. Public interest in the arts has grown enormously. The staff at our museums have not grown to meet that interest. They are overwhelmed by demand and backlogs of work. Will the Minister confirm that the number of curatorial staff at the Victoria and Albert is exactly what it was 20 years ago, with the exception of one secretary and one word processor? Does the Minister share my alarm at hearing the director say that she intends to reduce that number?
However, there is a far more serious charge for the Government to face. The deputy chairman of the trustees, Sir Michael Butler, tells us that the finances of the Victoria and Albert have been cut each year for the past 13 years by 3 per cent. Now the Government are not honouring the pay awards to which they are a party. The OAL approves a pay award; but when the grant is fixed, it does not meet the terms on which increases of salaries and wages have been made. As a result, 83 per cent. of the V&A annual grant now goes on salaries and wages. At the British Museum I believe it is nearer 90 per cent. That means less and less money for those running the museum. By 1992, so I understand, the V&A will be in deficit unless it gets rid of staff. Is that one reason why eight curatorial staff have been asked to take voluntary retirement?
I call this policy dishonest and dishonourable. I can guess what the Minister will reply. She will say that the Government are spending millions on the roofs of the V&A, "The trustees have the remedy in their own hands. Let them raise money. Let them charge a realistic compulsory entry charge". So to raise money we have Sotheby's showing off their auction wares, and Elton John's bric-à-brac collection being exhibited. We have Burberrys using prime exhibition space to advertise, while Harrods display 13 paintings of the V&A to tout for sales of their reproduction Victorian furniture.
Would it not be more honest of the Government to hold a meeting of the trustees and directors of all the national museums and galleries and tell them that they expect them all to impose an entry charge of, whatever it might be, £3 or £5, according to the museum or gallery? The Government could work out with them ways of making the charge less onerous. There could be one free day a week. There could be a season ticket for friends of each of the institutions so that friends can drop in without charge, and so on.
May we have some leadership from the Ministers? After all, the Prime Minister is not short of that quality. Or will the Government continue, like the priest and the Levite, to pass by on the other side? Can the Government at any rate give leadership on one point? The continual pressure on museums to raise money by selling off their possessions is disgraceful. Is the Tate to sell a Van Gogh to mend its leaking roofs? The Minister for the Arts could do something to restore confidence by saying outright that he is not in favour of museums and galleries selling their acquisitions.
I must add that the provincial museums are particularly alarmed by the financial crisis at the V&A. They suffered a blow in 1978 when Sir Roy Strong axed the circulation service on grounds of economy. Now Mr. Graham Whiffen is reported as saying that the museum is considering asking other institutions to pay for receiving advice—institutions such as the provincial museums, the National Trust, the National Heritage Fund, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the reviewing committee. I think that would be nothing short of a scandal. These bodies are charities and the reviewing committee is a government agency. If they are to be charged, every institution will charge and the Government will pay a pretty penny. What about the public? Is it envisaged that the opinions that the V&A supply to those asking for advice will be calculated by the hour? Or will they be calculated pro rata per valuation?
Let me now turn to the dispute itself. I do not believe that the dispute at the V&A is simply a matter of a reforming director being opposed by recalcitrant staff or of a tyrannical director riding roughshod over experts. But I do believe that the change in policy that the director wishes to implement has not been handled all that well. For some time, so I understand, the relations between the management and the curatorial staff have been rather less good than they should be. To remedy such matters, Sir Roy Strong set up a committee of keepers and senior staff. They could agree on nothing.
Accordingly, the new director set up another committee in May of last year under Mr. Murdoch, the keeper of paintings and drawings. This committee was far more representative of the staff as a whole. It came up with five alternative plans. These schemes were discussed at a weekend conference held in the country. Great support was shown for the director and there was great willingness by most staff to implement reforms. There was no further consultation with staff. On 26th January the director put her plan for reform to the trustees.
That was a radical plan and would certainly have aroused opposition from some of the staff. It was not circulated to the trustees with other papers for the meeting. It was tabled at the meeting. One or two trustees protested that they must have time to study it. Some say they were given half an hour, others a quarter of an hour to do so. No one knows better than myself how difficult it is for any academic or artistic institution to obtain agreement on change, particularly radical change. The director may have reasoned that if she put the plan first to the staff, some of them would have lobbied trustees to oppose it or even started a press campaign to oppose it.
Whether or not the plan should first have been put to the staff of the V&A, surely the trustees should not have been asked to take a decision of such magnitude without time to consider likely reactions to the plan, and whether it needed in any way to be modified. Were the trustees told that the plan was likely to be criticised inside and outside the museum? The more drastic the reconstruction of course the more important it was for them to have ample time
768
to consider it. Anyway, the trustees approved the plan. Eight days later eight senior curatorial staff were each told in a brief interview that they were being offered early retirement at once or they were liable to be made redundant.
I think there are two issues here. The trustees were not informed that senior staff, some of whom had served the museum for some 20 to 30 years, were to be sacked. The only reference to the future of the staff in the memorandum that was tabled ran as follows:
"The implications of the foregoing for individuals will be discussed with each member of the curatorial staff so that they can be placed successfully in the new developing structure or otherwise accommodated".
It may be that in industry the words "otherwise accommodated" would make it crystal clear to directors that staff were to be sacked. But such periphrastic language should not be used to a board of trustees, some of whom expect to be addressed in plain English.
The day after the meeting of the trustees, the director held a staff meeting. I have the text of the director's speech here. Staff say they were led to understand that no redundancies were imminent. Should staff of such seniority have been treated in that way? It will be said that they obtained more generous terms than if they had been made redundant. The terms were not generous, however. The staff received what was legally owing to them. The money was not obtained by a special indulgence on the part of the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Treasury exercised its right of virement and obtained unspent sums that were earmarked for the repair of the V&A building. Those sums were transferred in order to meet the staffs early retirement payments; in other words money badly needed to repair the crumbling fabric of the building was diverted for this purpose. What is more, the cost of the redundancies is far more than £300,000. I understand it may amount to as much as £1.75 million when all the staff have retired.
It may be said in defence of this action that many of the staff in different ways were obstructive or quirky. Keepers very often are quirky. One whose work was beyond reproach had the reputation within the museum of opposing any change of any kind as a matter of principle. Another was renowned for retreating into his lair to write a book. There are many ways of dealing with difficult staff—establishing good personal relations is one. However, if that is impossible, as it sometimes is in museums, the redeployment of duties is another way.
The headship of departments can, and perhaps should, revolve. As Mr. Macmillan used to say when reshuffling his Cabinet, "We all of us have to spend some time in the pavilion". If Mr. Lightbown, Mr. Mallet or Miss Levey had been invited to exchange duties with other members of the staff, they may have accepted. Why lose their expertise? It has never been alleged that any of the eight people involved were poor scholars. Will the Minister tell us whether the eight were sacked to allay the fears that they would not co-operate? Why not first see whether they would? They may well have co-operated if the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, had used his great persuasive powers.
I think there is a question of principle here. In business, so we are told, high executives are called in at 10.30 in the morning and told they must leave the building by 12.30. Such executives are of course paid very large salaries. The larger one's salary, the larger is one's golden handshake and the more ignominious one's exit. But curators are not paid large salaries. They belong to the learned professions and they are paid even less than dons. That is all the more reason to treat them decently.
Hundreds of dons have had to take early retirement in recent years. But they were given time to adjust, to appeal and to work out their entitlements. Hardly a story has emerged from the universities of vulgar and brutal treatment. Many people consider that the staff of the Victoria and Albert were treated, in this respect, vulgarly and brutally.
There are some matters concerning the trustees that I must raise with the Minister. Does she agee that when a major change of this kind is made to improve efficiency new posts should be advertised? Why was it then that, despite a promise made to the trustees that that would be the case, the major post of administrative assistant director was not advertised but Mr. Close was appointed from within the museum? It may well be that he would in the end have been appointed as the person best fitted for the job. I do not dispute that, but why not test the field?
The trustees agreed to spend £250,000 on an advertising campaign to attract visitors. Whether that was wise when a major reconstruction was envisaged—we know that such reconstructions always cost money—is another matter. But, whatever the cost, was it right that the contract should have gone to Saatchi and Saatchi when Mr. Maurice Saatchi is a trustee of the gallery? I must say at once that I am in no way making a personal attack on Mr. Saatchi. Everyone knows what fine patrons of the arts he and his brother are and how public spirited they are in opening to the public their gallery in West Hampstead. Incidentally, it is one of the best designed galleries in London. It is a real gem. But trustees give their services free. Those services are very valuable. Trustees do not become trustees for profit. I dare say that the profit here was nil or negligible and that all that Mr. Saatchi wanted was the prestige that his firm would enjoy by being associated with trying to raise the prestige of the V&A. However I must ask the Minister whether her right honourable friend will inform the chairmen of all boards of trustees that none of their colleagues should benefit financially from their position.
I shall leave it to others to enlarge on the wisdom or otherwise of the director's plan of reform. I do not wish to be dogmatic about the management structure of a museum of which I have no personal knowledge. I do not think curators are infallible judges of every aspect of their work. However, no praise could be too high for the connoisseurship of the curators at the National Gallery. But the trustees there did not think that some of those curators were good judges when it came to redecorating the rooms in which they displayed their masterpieces. In the end the trustees had to rule that no scheme of redecoration could go ahead without their approval.
770
However, the trustees did not consider degrading the curators. There are surely a number of ways of skinning a cat.
The present difficulties which the V&A faces today seem to have arisen from bad management rather than bad curators. The near miss recently on the Gloucester candlestick occurred because there was no curator present. Is it true, as is alleged, that for eight years in the late 1970s virtually no maintenance work was carried out? Sir Michael Butler tries to persuade us that curators must have the predominant say, as he calls it, about which objects should be displayed in each gallery and in each case, and that they should have the predominant say in the labelling, and should continue to be responsible for recommendations on acquisitions. He says they should continue to be responsible for disposals, for the choice of objects for exhibition, for advice on loans, for export licences and other matters. That is of course their range of responsibilities at the present time.
I am astonished that it is proposed that if that is the case we can make do with fewer curators. Surely what is needed is what Professor Michael Jaffe, the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, has been urging for years; namely, the establishment of a training course in management for curators of national and of provincial museums.
I am not asking the Government to request the trustees to reconsider the matter. What is done is done, as Lady Macbeth said, although I sincerely hope the director's nights will not be as disturbed as those of that misguided lady. Running a museum is more a matter of man-management than financial management. So let me end on a lighter note. Anyone who knows Greece will remember that in that land of gestures there are two in particular which are often employed. There is "poko" which is used when discussing politics, and there is "stroko" which is used when discussing love or money. I think a great deal more "stroko" needs to be used in the forthcoming months at the museum. Stroking one's subordinates is sometimes as necessary in restoring morale as exhortation.
I have another remedy. The Brigade of Guards is famous for its discipline. It is also famous for the way in which it looks after its men and trains its officers in man-management. I rather doubt whether those who run museums and galleries would be accepted for attachment to a battalion of the Guards, but perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and those former guardsmen he used to select to second the loyal Address could be induced to tell the director and administrative staff of the V&A some of the secrets of getting the best out of those who work under them.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, your Lordships are lucky because we have speaking in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who will be able to answer some of the questions which have been raised.
I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said at the beginning of his speech. I

771
intervene in the debate only briefly because I was for five years the chairman of the Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Indeed, I was the first chairman of the trustees because until 1984 the museum was administered directly by the Government. It was a great privilege to serve that museum. It is one of the world's great museums, and I dare to say that of its kind it is the greatest. I enjoyed myself and I enjoyed the privilege of knowing those who worked in the museum. I think that I had a happy relationship with them. I had, and have, a respect and admiration for the work they do in extremely difficult circumstances.
When I arrived at the museum I discovered, first, that successive governments—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan—had shamefully underfunded the museums and this museum in particular. In regard to capital expenditure the situation was no less than a disgrace. The roof leaked, the central heating radiators burst, the drainage did not work. I remember that a couple of years after I went there we worked out that it would take £30 million to put the fabric of the museum right. You cannot attract private sponsorship for that kind of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked why £300,000 was under spent and not used on the fabric of the museum. He can have had little to do with the PSA if he does not know the reason for that.
The Government must be responsible for the fabric of museums. There is no way in which one can attract private sponsorship for the Arthur Robinson drainage system or the John Smith central heating boiler. That is the Government's job. I think that the present Minister for the Arts has done everything that he can in rather difficult circumstances to try to provide more capital expenditure for the museums.
Secondly I discovered that that underfunding extended to the running costs of the museum. No doubt my noble friend behind me will bear me out, although perhaps in a different context, that there was a favourite Treasury device. It was to tell the museums to settle their budgets on the basis of 2 per cent. inflation, then to settle civil service salaries and wages at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. and, because the museums were tied to government rates, to expect the museums to absorb the difference. In the museums where, as the noble Lord said, 80 per cent. of the costs relate to people, that meant that it was a nightmare trying to make both ends meet. Sometimes one even had to worry about pen and paper.
All that made administration very difficult. Curators and the then director himself had and have an increasingly heavy and varied load. They had to master a host of other activities remote from the sort of work that curators had to do in the old days when their work was connected primarily with scholarship. They had to do so often with no help at all. They had to write their letters in longhand because there were no secretaries, and they were and are hopelessly overworked.
Let us face it, that does not lead to efficient administration. There was, and is, considerable
772
criticism of the administration in the great national museums, and not least in the V&A. I think that some of it was wholly justified. There was criticism about the lack of inventories, the delay in cataloging and the backlog of conservation. All that was absolutely fair. However, a very great deal of that inefficiency was due to a lack of money, but not all of it.
It had something to do with the way in which the museum was organised and the enormous workload which was placed on the curators as a result. Towards the end of my time at the museum I came to the conclusion that a radical reorganisation was necessary. I believe that the director was absolutely right to rearrange the responsibilities and the chart of administration in the museum. I do not believe that that reflects upon the individuals concerned because I do not believe that it was their fault. However, the unhappy fact remains that reorganisations of that kind mean redundancies. I know that nobody is more sorry than the trustees and the director that that should be so.
I should like to make one last point. I know that the director is determined that the scholarship upon which the reputation of the Victoria and Albert Museum to a great extent depends should be maintained. I know too that she will monitor carefully the progress and consequences of her reorganisation. When we appointed Mrs. Esteve-Coll as director we thought unanimously, and speaking for myself I still do, that she was the outstanding candidate—capable, experienced and sensible. I think that those who worked in the Victoria and Albert Museum will know what a remarkable job she did in reshaping the National Art Library in that museum.
I am greatly dismayed, and frankly sickened, by the personal abuse and attacks to which she has been subjected, not least by one of her expatriate predecessors who has never met her and who wrote a letter with what can only be described as a pen dipped in vinegar. I cannot say, and nobody can say with certainty, that the proposals that the director and trustees have put forward are right. Equally, nobody can say with certainty that they are wrong. What I can say with certainty is that those who indulge in that kind of ad hominem argument rather than addressing the issues do themselves and their cause no good.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I know that we are all very pleased to see him back here participating in debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is entirely justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He is uniquely equipped to do so with his outstanding academic career, not only as a scholar, but as an experienced administrator, and with his distinguished work as chairman of the National Gallery. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, we are debating the situation of the greatest museum of decorative and fine art and design in the world. The V&A is part of the nation's

773
patrimony and, along with other national museums, reflects, as the Museums and Galleries Commission put it:
"the nation's place in the history of civilisation".
The commission also said in its recent report that a museum's success must rest on more than popularity. In other words, it reasserts the key importance of scholarship as a priority. It is a view which was echoed the other day in The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who wrote:
"Destroy the fruits of years of scholarship and there is nothing left to popularise".
There are two matters to address here. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked: are the director's proposals worthy of support, and was the manner of their introduction appropriate? In my view, the second question can be answered only with a resounding and unequivocal no. The crisis at the V&A reflects so much of what is wrong with government policy towards the arts, as the noble Lord pointed out. First, there is the financial situation and the financial crisis which lies behind the problem that has arisen. Eighty-three per cent. of the grant provided to that museum is now absorbed in wages and salaries. In 1991–92, 100 per cent. of the grant will be thus absorbed: what a way to finance one of the greatest museums of the world!
The museum is an institution which is beginning to leak and disintegrate and which cries out for the Government's attention. The Government are prepared to produce £100 million to acquire a hugely publicised collection of paintings from a German millionaire, yet they cannot even find the amount of money needed—as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed out—to save one of the greatest museums in the world. There is glory, glamour and status in Thyssen; there is no less than the preservation of our heritage at the V&A.
Secondly, there is the issue of the appointment of trustees. In 1984 we debated the changeover of the V&A to trustee status. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I held different views in that debate about the role of the trustees. Since then, on a number of occasions in this House I have referred to the dangers of the Government's policy of appointing to great museums only trustees who are prepared to further the Thatcher philosophy—business men and women with an ability to make and raise money, who are willing to make museums part of the leisure industry of the country, to give priority to marketing, generation of income and the pursuit of the wealthy and to further the glitter of sponsorship and the ritzy presentation of the contents. All that is irrespective of whether those persons hold any qualifications whatever for tending, protecting and nurturing what has made our museums the envy of the world.
In that situation, did the trustees of the V&A—the great majority of whom are in business—familiarise themselves with the drastic structural reforms? Did they understand them? Did they digest them? Did they inquire about the cost of them? Did they measure the effect upon the staff, for whom, after all, they are responsible? Were they satisfied that the plans had been properly discussed with the staff? Did they know what had been the role of the Office
774
of Arts and Libraries, Mr. Luce and Mr. Richard Wilding in the formulation of the reforms before they were presented to the trustees? Had any of them visited other institutions and talked to respected scholars and administrators in other great museums?
To be a trustee of a great museum it is not sufficient to attend seven or eight meetings a year and accept the honour of the post. Did the chairman—I am so glad that he is here to take part in the debate—point out to his colleagues the inevitable protests that would be received when it was found what those radical reforms involved? Those scholars, who have a worldwide reputation, were treated as a tycoon might treat redundant staff in a takeover bid.
We know certain facts. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has pointed out that on that fatal 26th January those proposals were tabled and were on the table when the trustees came to sit down round it. The proposals would revolutionise that great museum and alter the whole basis upon which its reputation had been built up over the years. Anyone who has ever attended a committee meeting knows what the word "tabled" means. As the noble Lord said, two or three trustees protested and were granted a quarter of an hour to read the paper before the meeting proceeded with the business. In all seriousness, is that any way to deal with a matter of such huge importance?
In that paper, of which we all have a copy, there is not one single word about possible redundancies. Were the weasel words that were read out from paragraph 33 by the noble Lord a frank message to the trustees of what was afoot? In an interview given by the director to The Times three days later, there was not one word about any redundancies.
Within two weeks, the human heart of that museum had been torn out. Eight or nine men and women—scholars of incomparable knowledge, experience and repute—had gone from the museum. Their jobs had become redundant. Paragraph 5 of the director's apologia, a copy of which we all no doubt received last night in readiness for this debate and which I have in my hand, asks:
"Why was it necessary to make several senior curators redundant? No-one was made redundant. Certain individuals whose jobs disappear under the re-organisation were offered voluntary redundancy".
The document refers to "certain individuals". As I have said, the jobs of international scholars with an average period of 20 years' service in that museum disappeared. As we all know, they had 14 days in which to consider the ending of their careers. Were they to take the redundancy money offered to them? They were told that £300,000 was there but on 31st January it would no longer be there: "Your decision must be made in the next 14 days". There were no compulsory redundancies; no redundancies were made. Is that a frank account of what really happened when they together told the press that they left under protest?
That is the situation. Certain questions arise. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will enlighten us when he comes to speak. Why were there nine redundancies? Was it because 10 would have meant certain compulsory procedures applying

775
in the museum under the trade union rules? Where did the £300,000 come from? Was it underspend on OAL or at the V&A—money which was vitally necessary for repairs? How much has this operation cost? Is the figure that the noble Lord gave of £1.75 million the amount which the taxpayer has to pay? I am sure that the Minister will inform us accurately.
We were told by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in our recent debate on the preservation of the heritage (at col. 1428 on 20th December in the Official Report):
"We are entering a new phase of entrepreneurial museum management",
and he spoke of,
"vigorous marketing in order to make … collections accessible to the public".
How true. We have already been told of Mr. Saatchi's efforts with the advertising campaign for the V&A as,
"an ace cafe with a museum attached".
Sir Terence Conran, a trustee, refurbished the cafe and has marketed, through his firm, reprints of the textiles held by the museum. We have heard of the Sotheby's exhibition of Elton John's possessions with a very profitable auction afterwards. The Sock Shop has recently had a most profitable exposure at the museum and so has Burberrys. Is this treatment of distinguished staff and these commercial activities examples of the new government policy?
Finally let me turn to the proposals. How best to organise the running of a great museum must normally be left to those who know about it. However, control of collections is to be vested in managers answerable to a registrar. Departments will merge. Ceramics will be absorbed with metalwork and sculpture and the keeper, the renowned John Mallet and his No. 2, have been swept away, and ceramics will become part of a mixed department. This looks to me as though scholars are now to become generalists. Curators will have lost their power base and will be outnumbered by the administration staff.
Curators at the V&A are not academics in the university sense. They are not wedded to the study of books and treaties in libraries. It is the development of connoisseurship—a term of art in this profession—to which they devote their working lives. It is the constant dialogue with objects—the handling, care, treatment and display of them—which enables the scholar to learn the genuine from the fake, to date and to authenticate. If managers are henceforth to be responsible for presentation, handling, storing, conserving, moving, lending and labelling, not one of those duties can be properly done without the expert advice of a curator. I wonder whether this director—three years at the museum, with a library background—fully understands the role of a curator and the apparent duplication involved in the separation of what is called housekeeping from scholarship.
Does it concern the chairman that museums from all over the world have expressed the view that the separation will destroy the reputation of the V&A? When I read the protest from Professor Gombrich,
776
probably the most distinguished art historian alive, that,
"curators have earned no thanks for their patient labour in the search of truth",
and,
"do the new brooms know the damage they are preparing for the future?",
I ask myself whether the director is right.
Surely the reforms in the museum should have embraced and built on the assets that are already there. I hope that the doubts that I express will be resolved when we hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Question has been raised with eloquence and learning by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and answered in a way which to me was unexpected by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as an ex-chairman of the directors. It was raised again with fire and leas lung by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. I shall not therefore go again over the matter of the sacked keepers. I use short and familiar words. But I shall concentrate on wider aspects and on one particular narrow one.
If one were Mrs. Thatcher it would have been a very good idea to start with the museums, as she did, with the National Heritage Act 1983. If one were determined to take a symbolic action to indicate to people the primacy in the view of the Government of profit and commerce over learning and education one could not have found a better way to do it. She therefore wrote the Act which was debated here. We did not succeed in improving it very much. It was put through against the background of continually falling government grants to museums. Its purpose was already quite clear. It was to enable—indeed to force—museums to seek private funding. It also gave the Prime Minister personally the power to appoint the boards of directors of certain museums including the Victoria and Albert. I know that one can chop the figures into three classes of persons, but she did this in a way which reinforced her original decision. It was clear that all those businessmen on the board were there to teach the former effete academics and connoisseurs how to make a healthy thing called money. The result has been as we have been told today.
I have one more point about the "ace caff". Of course Mr. Saatchi's slogan "ace caff with museum attached" is destined for immortality. It stands for so much that is done by the Government and will be done in the future no doubt. I note from Sir Michael Butler's article in The Times that there is to be created a new post under the new regime called assistant director (collections). I cannot think what it can mean but that the director's prime responsibility will be the caff, and the collections and their maintenance and study are moved one down and away from the director's desk on to that of an assistant director.
Before I knew this Question was being put down, I had put some Questions down for Written Answers. They were not due to be answered by today, but the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, with her

777
customary courtesy, and even prestidigitation, has reached out her hand from her office in the Ministry of Agriculture, and I received the Answers from the Minister for the Arts this afternoon. She has performed a miracle. They are instructive. With the permission of the House, I shall read some of them. I asked:
"On what terms Sock Shop and Burberrys have been allowed to exhibit and advertise their goods in the galleries of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and on what terms national treasures in the care of that museum have been transferred as a sales adjunct to the custody of Harrods."
The Answer was:
"This is a matter for the director and trustees of the museum. I will ask the director to write to the noble Lord".
This is a matter that the House will wish to get to the bottom of.
As I do not often go to Harrods, and had not been to the V&A, I was alerted to this by an article in the Herald Tribune, an American newspaper. The article was written by an art history correspondent who was amazed to find that the Burberry coat that he was wearing when he visited the V&A was the same as one in a glass case with a nice advertisement for Burberrys. A Guardian columnist a few weeks later recounted how she had bought a pair of tights at a Sock Shop in Farringdon Road and went to the V&A to write the intended piece about it and found the tights in a case with a nice advertisement for Sock Shop. This is a startling departure about which we should collect all the information we can.
My second Question was to ask:
"What guarantees Harrods have given of the care they will take of (a) the Waterloo Vase, (b) the Duke of Wellington's Berlin Service and (c) pictures, including at least one by John Crome, all from the Victoria and Albert Museum, while they are in Harrods' Knightsbridge shop".
The Answer was:
"This is a matter for the director and trustees of the museum. I will ask the director to write to the noble Lord".
Thirdly, I asked:
"Whether the present commercial use of gallery space at the Victoria and Albert Museum and of objects in its care outside the museum had been discussed with the expert curators who have recently been required to take early retirement".
Here we are a little nearer to the crux of the matter. The answer was:
"This is a matter for the director and trustees of the museum. I will ask the director to write to the noble Lord".
My fourth Question was luckier. I asked:
"Whether all objects in the care of the Victoria and Albert Museum are at present on show in its galleries".
My reason for doing that was fairly obvious. Here the Government were voluble in their explanations:
"As with all national collections, it is not possible for the Victoria and Albert Museum to display all the objects in the collections at the same time. Objects in reserve collections are made available regularly to scholars and members of the public on request".
The next Question was to ask:
"Whether the … trustees and/or director of the Victoria and Albert Museum have any authority to dispose of objects in the care of the museum".
The answer is of course that they have, and that authority was given by the Act of 1983.
778
The Answer referred to limited powers, but I cannot see any way in which those powers could impose any limitation on a museum selling anything. It depends who are the trustees to declare what kind of object it is.
Lastly, I asked from what accounts the money was being taken to secure the early retirement of the expert curators. Here I was given a voluble answer—too voluble to read to the House. And interesting indeed it was. The Government clearly regard that as their own responsibility. The Government permitted that money to be taken from the building account, perhaps because of a shortfall in expenditure. But as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, who does not expect shortfalls in expenditure in a given year on building accounts from the PSA? Money was taken from that building account and used to buy out the curators. I think that is the correct expression. They had to accept that kind of money in comparison with the salaries that they were getting and could expect later.
Lastly, on the curators, Sir Michael Butler's article assured the reader that the curators under the new regime would be allowed to take objects into their own offices to compare with other objects. I believe that gives what must be the tone of the board of trustees better than any other quote I have read. Curators will be allowed the great privilege of taking items out of cases to look at them, as they always have, in privacy if their work requires it. That at least is guaranteed.
I submit that the overall picture is that the Government are determined to commercialise the museums. In order to commercialise the Victoria and Albert, which they chose to do first, they found it necessary to get rid of the world famous corps of keepers who were there who either did object to or would have objected to it. I was given no answer to that question. I look forward to receiving one from the director of the museum. It was found necessary to get rid of those people. The power to sell is there. I have little doubt that it will be used and used increasingly because I see no sign whatever of the Government being prepared to take up once again the ancient and honourable role, first of the kings and then of democratically-elected governments, of maintaining collections of artefacts for the education of and study by the people, and as a means of encouraging young artisans, artificers and artists, to enter into the minds and hands of those in the past who made those artefacts. That is what it is for, and it is clear to me that that purpose is being and has been and will be abandoned by the present Government.
Nevertheless, the point of the whole debate today is to listen to what account the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, gives us. I am glad of, and compliment him on, his choice of being last in the debate so that he can answer as many points as possible. We shall have much to learn from that.
8.56 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, so far in the debate there has been much talk about under-funding. I agree entirely with that. I know from experience that without more money, one cannot establish the facilities needed for a growing public, but that is not

779
what I want to speak about tonight. There is another aspect to the difficulties in the Victoria and Albert. When our national museums were founded 100 or more years ago, for whom and by whom were they to be managed? The British Museum established the pattern. The trustees instructed their first director not to admit more than six members of the public on any one day. They engaged scholarly curators to build and look after the collections for the benefit of a small circle of connoisseurs.
That system produced splendid results. Naturally enough as time passed it attracted a wider and wider public. Then the trustees had to begin to think about providing facilities very different from those needed for research. The conflict between research and administration took shape and we still have it today.
All my life I have found curators—many of them my very good friends—frank and honest about their disdain for the general public. There is no reason to be surprised or indignant about that attitude. Visitors can be an awful nuisance. They waste the time of professional staff, ask silly questions, crowd the galleries to a point where the serious student cannot examine the objects as he should.
When I was considering the introduction of museum charges I asked the late Lord Clark whether he would give me his support. He said, "Yes, I will, but on one condition: you must charge children double". He was perfectly serious. He had often been maddened by boys playing cops and robbers round the exhibition cases. He said that he had once tripped over a little girl lying on her stomach drawing a perfectly hideous picture of an Egyptian mummy.
There exists a real problem: how to reconcile with the rising tide of visitors the days without interruption which are needed by the scholars. That will never be easy to achieve, especially when there is insufficient funding to strike a generous balance between those two conflicting objectives.
It is just luck—it is a bonus one cannot count on—if a good scholar is also a good administrator. Even the best curators cannot do everything. When in addition to the care and knowledge of their collections other duties become a public concern—such as catering for the unsophisticated constituents of Members of Parliament, teaching art in the schools, the importance of tourism—unless enough attention is paid within the museum to good housekeeping and to the new external services, trouble is bound to arise.
Could the trouble at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been anticipated and dealt with without what appears to be a dictatorial break with the past which has led to sharp criticism from my noble friend Lord Annan and other important people in the world of the arts? I believe that it could and I ought to try to explain to your Lordships how it might have been achieved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said, in November 1982 your Lordships debated the Heritage Bill. My noble friends Lord Perth and Lord Gibson—I am glad that they are to speak, because they do so with great experience of museums—joined with me in proposing an amendment which
780
would have brought the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum and some of his senior colleagues round the board table with the nominated trustees. There they would have discussed together such managerial changes as are being made today. Our amendment failed and it is important to stress why it did so. Too many of your Lordships were content with the old-fashioned structure where a hard and fast line is drawn between the responsibilities of the director to manage and the responsibilities of the trustees to observe and advise.
Mandarins in the art world, such as Lord Clark and Sir John Pope-Hennessy, always held that the trustees should know what the director is doing only after he has done it. There have been six uneasy years since the Bill became law. But, had the amendment been accepted and had there been on the statute book a system for constant discussions between senior executive officers and the trustees, I can hardly believe that the changes now faced in the museum would have arisen in what has sometimes been considered to be a sharp way.
I turn to deal with changes in the staff. I do not have the pleasure of knowing Mrs. Esteve-Coll. I know of her reputation, which is excellent, and, in principle, I entirely support the changes she is making. Many museums have already made imaginative adjustments to the changing priorities in our society. They realise that the way in which they conserve, display and explain their collections counts for much in the degree of esteem in which our national culture is held.
When we talk about "national" culture, what do we mean? I do not believe that we all mean the same thing. In this country we have always been good at agriculture and horticulture but we have not made much of culture without qualification. I grew up believing that culture was slightly foreign, not really English, and that it was attainable by only a limited, superior minority of which I hoped one day to be a member. But, after some experience in the maintained schools, after the friendship of a number of artists and two or three years as Minister for the Arts, I came to the conclusion that in order to deserve the epithet "national", culture must not only start at the top and filter down but must spread outwards and upwards from the bottom. If one looks at young people in the streets today and at their clothes one can see that our culture is spreading from the bottom.
I thought that the health of the national culture could be measured by how far the barriers which kept art a luxury were being removed. To obtain the best from our museums, many more ladders of experience were needed which were open to anyone to climb as far as his or her capabilities would allow. Obviously the Victoria and Albert Museum has a huge potential for erecting such ladders of experience for anyone who can be persuaded to take an interest in design and decoration.
Was not that the original objective of the Prince Consort? I believe that it was, but the museum had become much more intellectual than His Royal Highness would have approved of. Provided that the resources are adequate—and I am ready to admit that they are not—the Prince's objective can be

781
achieved today not at the expense of research but essentially in co-operation with it.
As I see it, that is what my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and Mrs. Esteve-Coll want to do. And they cannot do it unless they redeploy the staff in order to get a better balance between research and good housekeeping. They are going to extend the base of British culture and at the same time the work of the experts will be protected. It is absurd to say that the work of the experts is being destroyed. On the contrary, they are now going to have much more time to themselves, and they can write their books. I remember very well at the British Museum a very distinguished man coming to ask: "Can I write a life of Proust?" I asked him, "How much time will it take?" and he said, "Well, nearly all my time." I thought he would do it very well and so I told him to get on with it.
You could not say that in the Victoria and Albert as it is now. You will be able to after this reorganisation. I think your Lordships should really support the trustees: they are moving into the world in which we live and the director has obviously got some good ideas. I personally wish them the very best of success.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us in his admirable speech how this row began. I think it is also important to remember the background against which it has developed: a background which has been there for several years. The background is that throughout the world of academic scholarship there is a general apprehension that a utilitarian view of the value of places of learning is gaining ground in society generally, and in government in particular ——
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I do not think it is.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, it is widely felt among scholars both within and without universities that studies which do not lead to visible material progress are not as respected as once they were and no longer receive the priority that once they did. Whether these fears are justified or not is not a subject for debate tonight. Their relevance this evening is simply that they exist and in the V&A they are largely the consequence of inadequate public funding in recent years for the basic purposes of the museum. This shortfall and its consequences have been emphasised by the Museums and Galleries Commission in its report on our national museums.
While it is acceptable that trustees of a museum should be encouraged to look to the private sector for some desirable expansion and development, it is quite wrong—this has been said already this evening and it cannot be over-emphasised—that they should be expected to find funds for basic activities: that is to say, for preserving the fabric of the building, for displaying, securing, conserving and, where appropriate, adding to the collections in their care as well as using them for education and scholarship. It is the inadequate funding which has led scholars and curators to fear that just as pure research in universities is being, as they see it, downgraded, so the basic purposes of the museum may be betrayed
782
because of the need for it to gear itself to purposes for which funds can more easily be found from the private sector.
The new chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and the new director, Mrs. Esteve-Coll, undoubtedly found the museum in a serious plight, as both the MGC's report and the deep concern of the Public Accounts Committee testify. They deserve our sympathy in their determination to tackle the problems, but we are entitled to ask questions about their chosen solution. It is not easy for outsiders to judge whether the proposed structure is right or wrong. But we are permitted to wonder whether the abolition of the status of the scholar-curator—a breed which has made the museum so internationally admired—is really the only way to set about reform and whether modification, rather than root and branch change, might not have secured the objective; and, above all, whether change in less haste—change over a year or two—might not have secured better treatment for those most affected by it. If the haste was dictated by the methods of the Treasury, and it seems to have been, then it will not be the first time that our system of public accounting control has proved expensive in all but the shortest terms.
What has happened at the V&A of course is that the enormous increase in public interest in the museum and the demands upon it have far outstripped any increases in public funding. Consequently there has been a downward pressure on staff numbers in relation to the volume of work required of them, and staff have had to spend extra time—much more than before—on tasks of management, evidently with not great success at all times.
It is right that management, marketing and so on should be improved, and that the trustees should have a duty to promote public understanding and enjoyment. But, as the MGC says,
"Museums must rest on more than popularity",
and, as it adds by implication, it is the duty of government to ensure that they do, or to provide at least the wherewithal to ensure that they do. Popularity must not be at the expense of connoisseurship, scholarship and research, which, in view of present public interest in and demands on the museum, needs all the more to be expressed as a primary purpose of the museum. It has been argued that the changes in structure recently adopted by the trustees are calculated to achieve precisely that objective. By relieving curators of administrative tasks it is said that they will be released to find more time for connoisseurship and scholarship.
However, what has caused so many doubts to be raised by the proposed changes, quite apart from the premature loss—if that is not a weasel way of describing it—of so many distinguished people is the statement in the director's paper that there must be a clear-cut separation between scholarship and housekeeping. The paper goes on to define housekeeping as receiving, documenting, moving, storing and conserving. This has been interpreted by many to mean that unqualified people will be handling the objects for which the expert scholars will no longer be responsible. I do not believe for a

783
moment that that is the case and that they will be unqualified to receive or document. That cannot be the intention. There has been a very great deal of ill-informed comment about this and some disgraceful personal attacks on the director. What is seriously at issue is where responsibility shall lie, and that issue is really worth discussing.
Nearly 20 years ago in a very different world from today I was chairman of the Victoria and Albert's advisory council. This gives me no qualification whatever to talk in detail about the organisation of the museum and of the staff. Our status as a council was not comparable with that of the disestablished body of trustees that exists today. Nevertheless reflecting on the V&A as I knew it then, I ask myself certain questions. Can it be right to divorce the experts from responsibility for the objects that they understand so much better than anyone else? Who will be responsible for a decision to loan an object or to move it—not who will advise on such points but who will actually be responsible for the decision? I think that it probably ought to be the person who best understands the object, and is that not the scholar curator?
In a sense the proposals separating the expertise and the administration have a very familiar ring to someone who has spent most of his life in business. The practice of having experts on tap but not on top is a good old business principle. But a museum that is largely devoted not to design but to the fine as well as the decorative arts is not a business and it seems to me must be scholar-based or connoisseur-based, whatever the administrative system devised to support the scholar curators. However, it is not for in experts like me to prescribe a form of organisation for a great museum.
I have only one point that I want to urge. Given the present situation, confidence will best be restored by the nature and quality of the senior appointments that have yet to be made. If the new post of assistant director (collections), is filled by a man or woman of the highest academic reputation who is also a good administrator, a good leader and motivator of people and a powerful enough personality to ensure that the number of curators responsible to him or her is really sufficient for the basic purposes of the museum, as the GMC describe them, if such a person can be found, then those critics who fear for the future may be confounded. Likewise the two new posts below that of assistant director (collections)—the head of research and the registrar of collections —must be filled by people who totally command the respect of the scholars within and without the museum. Moreover, if there is movement of staff between housekeeping and research that too will help.
We have been assured by one trustee in a letter to the press that the draft job descriptions for these posts provide convincing assurance that the conditions for scholarship will substantially be improved by the new arrangements. Unfortunately it is not just conditions for scholarship about which people are worried. They are also worried that scholar curators may lose their pre-eminent responsibility for making decisions about the objects in the
784
care of the museum. It must be up to the new assistant director (collections) to see not only that the housekeeping is greatly improved but that the museum values which the best keepers have so brilliantly upheld for many years continue to excite the admiration of the civilised world.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, as is appropriate at this stage of the evening. I cannot pretend to be an expert on museum matters in any way. My only claim to speak at all is that I was a trustee of the British Museum for 10 years. I retired last September, or I should not have dared to speak tonight. I might have been in a somewhat invidious position had I still been on the board.
I want to make only one point, which is quite enough at this hour, and I shall make it briefly. Reorganisation of the Victoria and Albert Museum seems to be based on the assumption that research and administration have to be separated. I regard that as totally wrong, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Eccles said. Of course, there are curators or keepers (according to the museum) who may be bad administrators. They may also be very irritating and awkward people. That is perfectly true. I am glad to say from my experience of the British Museum that I did not encounter awkward and difficult people, but that may have been luck.
I do not believe that curators or keepers need be bad administrators. The House should take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said about the possibility of such people being given some kind of training in administration before they take up their posts. Research and administration need not exist in separate compartments. The academic world—the university world—with which I am much more familiar than the museum world, offers many examples in which there are no such dichotomy. I suppose a classic case is the college over which the noble Lord, Lord Annan,presided—King's College, Cambridge—where the late Lord Keynes contrived to be a brilliant administrator and financier. He greatly augmented the wealth of the college and wrote books of immense learning and great value during that time. The two qualities are not incompatible.
I cannot believe that it is right to base the reorganisation of the Victoria and Albert Museum on the assumption, as it seems to be, that administration and scholarship should be separated in some way. If I may dare to say so, in my experience, at the British Museum they were not separated and they have not yet been separated. The place has not collapsed and there has been no great disorder or difficulty.
I regret to say that I am unhappy about these proposals for the Victoria and Albert Museum. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, will be able to allay those doubts. I greatly look forward to his speech and also to that of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I will say no more except that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised this Question. I am sure that there are in most of your Lordships' minds many doubts which will need to be allayed when the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, speaks.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having raised this matter. I also feel that the House can feel complacent and happy that it has found time to discuss something of great national interest. It is not really a matter that admits of party division. I have heard nothing here this evening that really addresses the matter that occurs to me as the major subject of complaint: that is, the nine individuals who have been disgracefully treated. That appears to be the matter to which we should address ourselves.
I have not heard a word from anyone. Possibly the most discreditable part of the proceedings is the way in which an attempted defence has been cooked up in order to say that the whole business is a division between the practical people who know how museums should be run and the mandarins of the arts, as they were described by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. That is an absolutely fanciful distinction. If we are to believe that the only people concerned with the just and humane treatment of the employees are the mandarins of the arts then I wish to convey my congratulations and good fortune to all such persons.
That appears to be the argument. As I said, I believe that this defence has been cooked up and is really the most discreditable part of the whole proceedings. I believe it has been cooked up because they could not find any other defence. To suggest that academics wish to appropriate the museum, that curators are not in the least concerned and that they hate the people who come in to the building is fanciful nonsense. It should not have been uttered and it is wrong that it has been. The simple question is that nine people have been shabbily and disgracefully treated.
Perhaps I may rehearse what happened to them. Apparently the discussion of this matter took some 15 minutes in order to consider a paper that was tabled at the meeting. It was not distributed in advance. I am asserting what I have heard and the facts may be wrong; it may be that the paper was distributed. Is it to be suggested that the fate of nine people who had given years of devoted service to that museum —some of them 30 years and one of them 40 years—should be decided in this way? Is it suggested that the right way to treat them is by allowing a decision to be reached after a 15-minute consultation on a paper that had not been read before? I believe that any private organisation that had behaved in that way would be stigmatised to high heaven. It is only a public organisation that can dare to treat people in that way.
I do not blame the curator or the chairman; I blame the people who appointed the trustees. I do not wish to stigmatise the trustees. I have examined the list and there are some of them who may have been qualified to perform their duties. It is quite clear that others of them had no qualifications. That is the real trouble. If those trustees had known what they were doing and had had any experience of how to deal with such a situation, they would not have tolerated for five minutes being asked to make a decision after a 15-minute survey of a difficult paper.
786
I do not know whether the reorganisation of this museum is right or wrong. I have not the least idea. Any expertise that I have is not in that direction. That is not the point. The point is whether or not it is more important to consider how to arrange furniture and objects than how to treat human beings. That is the real issue. That being so, I believe that the trustees have a heavy responsibility. Probably it attaches to the people who appointed them. If you are appointed to an office that requires a special knowledge and experience and you know that you have not got it, it is likely to make you very irresponsible as regards the discharge of your duties because the people who appointed you obviously do not take the appointment seriously.
I believe that to be the real answer here. The problem is that the trustees were incapable of performing their duties. Some of them must have known how thoroughly wrong it was to reach that decision after a 15-minute discussion. I do not blame the chairman. I hope the noble Lord will not regard this as embarrassing. I have the greatest regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I have had dealings with him over the years and I do not know anyone who has displayed more courage in the discharge of certain duties than he has. If I may say so, he is a man who has very willingly allowed himself to become a scapegoat and whipping boy for a number of situations that are not in the least his responsibility. He took on a job which presented him with this board of trustees. He was not in a position to remove them or to say that he wanted others. It is not surprising that he allowed them only 15 minutes. He must have realised that any longer deliberation would have been entirely useless.
One of the discussions here is about whether one can popularise scholarship. There is a way of popularising scholarship. There is a way whereby one can attract great numbers of unscholarly people to a greater respect for scholars. This can be quite a popular device. I should like to remind noble Lords of the famous radio or television broadcast—I cannot remember which—called "Animal, Vegetable or Mineral". The programme featured distinguished archaeologists. One of them was the first commanding officer of the territorial battery that I joined, Sir Mortimer Wheeler. His display at that performance was masterly. Others would say that the object presented was a Hittite doorknob. He would listen for a moment and then present the magisterially authoritative conclusion that it was an Assyrian water bottle.
That programme did more to arouse an interest in scholarship than 100 lectures and 100 dissertations published in learned works. I have another personal illustration. I helped—and I am glad that I helped—a distinguished archaeologist who unhappily died in Egypt while engaged in his archaeology. I refer to Professor Emery. He discovered the outer chamber of the Pharaoh who was, if I am not mistaken—I rely on a very inefficient memory—the originator of modern medicine. He never succeeded in finding the inner chamber because he died, alas, before his excavation could take place.
It was to the amazed discredit of the government that they would not provide one penny for this

787
research. For that reason I remember organising a dinner to which I was at pains to invite only rich tycoons, who, one would have thought, had no interest whatever in archaeology. By the end of the evening, when Professor Emery had explained to them in simple terms what he was doing, he had captivated them completely. One does not need to suppose that ordinary human beings cannot be attracted by scholarship. To believe that by destroying scholarship one is in some way increasing the attraction of the institution is not only a fallacy but is a stupid fallacy.
On another occasion I gave a dinner—my dinners were always designed with the mischievous intent of extracting money from the rich—to the professor of archaeology at Oxford. He may by now have retired as it was so many years ago. He made the Fishbourne discovery. I cannot remember his name. He too described to the audience in the clearest possible terms what he was doing He aroused a profound interest and moreover succeeded in extracting considerable sums of money from them. This project was supported by the Sunday Times.
788
These illustrations are intended merely to convey that the notion that in order to popularise an institution that is supposed to be scholarly one needs to destroy the scholars is a total fallacy. One can encourage an immense amount of understanding by encouraging the scholars. What has happened in this case is too sad. The blame rests with the people who appointed the trustees. It is wrong to blame the trustees. Most of them had no qualifications for doing the job and insufficient administrative management or committee experience to protest at what was happening. What has happened is unfortunate.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with whom I have conferred if not conspired, has a suggestion to make about how the position can be put right. It is a notion with which I shall warmly agree. If there is a way to put this right, we should seize the opportunity. It is a discreditable exercise in the history of museums and of scholarship in this country. It brings discredit on the country and requires that some rectification should take place. If there is an opportunity to rectify it, we should seize it with alacrity.
9.34 p.m.
Viscount Knutsford: My Lords, I find myself at odds with previous speakers because they have all had great experience of museums whereas I have absolutely none. I can observe only from a base of ignorance and dare to voice some thoughts which I am afraid will certainly not be as profound and spicy as those voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
The trustees at this fraught period in the distinguished history of the V&A should be actively involved in the continuing purpose of their charge or not involved at all. Surely they have taken the right decision to become more involved than hitherto by now stating certain objectives to enhance its public image, make the museum financially viable and modernise its standards in tune with the next century.
The hoped for outcome of those changes is to attract more and, I dare say, a mainly younger public to its collections and exhibitions—indeed, attendance figures have been falling drastically since 1983—and also to economise on expenditure, especially on staff costs, which, as we have heard, account for 83 per cent. of the total. In other words, the trustees are aiming to increase their income and contain their costs, so that they may aim for and anticipate a revenue surplus. Such surplus could be spent on preserving and displaying the objects in their care, not in carrying out badly needed repairs and renovations—for instance, to the 26 acres of roof which we have heard referred to more than once—which are at present inadequately funded by the Government and for which, as my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, have already said, the Government certainly should be responsible.
The intention of the trustees is surely to demonstrate that they are doing their best to put the museum into a sound financial state so that the Government may be more sympathetic and approachable and more generous with grant aid. Perhaps the director has been insensitive in the way that she has initiated the changes; but should she not be allowed to carry them through in her own uninterrupted way without the critics foreboding that the changes are doomed to fail? It is inept to criticise and carp and to raise empty queries as to how various funcions will be organised in the future. They will evolve in the course of time. Further, if they have to be fine tuned, so be it.
Eight of the senior curatorial staff have met their Waterloo and it is said that it is a great waste of talent and that expertise and outstanding scholarship have been lost. Temporarily perhaps, but are there no scholarly under keepers who have been waiting a long time for promotion?
As this century draws to a close, all the national museums must adapt to current conditions in order to thrive. They must demonstrate that requirement in order to gain more support from government and, indeed, from the private sector, which is much more likely to patronise a tightly-run modernistic museum
790
than an inefficient obsolescent institution which is sliding down the slope of insolvency.
That much-publicised affair may be honey to the art media but it is also a responsible attempt by the trustees to get more jam tomorrow to spread more thickly on their costly daily bread. They deserve the support of the critics and the Government's determined resolution to fund further capital expenditure.
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I join with many other noble Lords in welcoming the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, opened the debate. After hearing those who have spoken, one realises the great need for such a debate to try to find ways to meet some of the troubles about which we have heard.
It is probably true that almost everyone accepts that some changes are needed. If one is to make changes one should do so early in one's directorship rather than wait. Having said that, we have run into trouble. Members of the art world are at one another's throats. That will be a bad thing if it goes on for too long.
Before I come to what we should do, let me touch upon my qualifications. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I was at one time on the V&A advisory council. I knew the last two directors well. I count myself fortunate also to know the present one who, I can assure all your Lordships, has great qualities. She has courage and is clear thinking. My other qualification is my belief, which others have echoed, that the V&A is held on too tight a rein. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said at the beginning of his speech that it is under-funded. I believe that to be right. We are asking the V&A to make important changes without it having the money to do so.
I tried hard at the end of last year to suggest that the £100 million which did not go to the Thyssen collection should be channelled elsewhere, in particular to the V&A. I beg the Government to think carefully about finances.
The urgency of the financial trouble has led the director, the chairman and others to do things for which they would have liked a little more time. When the director was asked whether money was the main problem she said that time was of the essence. In other words, there was a pistol pointing at everyone's head.
We all know the sequel. It was the plan put before the trustees in January. I am not going into whether they were given a quarter of an hour to decide or whether the plan was appropriate. I wish to make three comments on the report. The first is that it wanted to divide administration and collection. That is probably right, but what worries me about the proposal is how administration is defined.
I noted that the paper said that there should be a clear-cut separation. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, made the point which I shall make—that is wrong. There should be a separation, but it should not be so clear-cut that one group feels that it has nothing

791
to do with what the other is up to. Having said that there must be a clear-cut separation, there was then the qualification that there needed to be close consultation between the administration group and the arts side, the collections. If that is so, then I think it is very clear that the administration side, as the situation is drawn, is going too far. Exhibitions, acquisitions and presentation are all part of the administration. My Lords, no; the role must to some degree also be that of the collections and arts side.
I think it is also true that the changes have been awkwardly brought about. I am not surprised; change is very difficult. I recall the famous night of the long knives when Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. These activities are very difficult. If one is not very experienced one can cause a great deal of trouble.
The third comment I wish to make is that I am a little surprised to see that so much help has come from America. There are four young Americans to do one thing and another very senior American from the APM, whatever that may be, is voluntarily giving his services. I believe that we have facilities and people here who could have advised just as well, if not better, and who know the conditions here.
That brings me back to my first point: how tragic it is that there is in-fighting in the administration of the museum. Those outside have to play a very important part at some time or another. There is an outcry which I fear will not go away. Many noble Lords will have received the paper which I received about the special organisation set up to continue the fight. I have a suggestion in that connection and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, the director and the board of trustees to consider it. On their programme or plan I suggest that they should consider asking the Museums and Galleries Commission to examine the situation and to help in one way or another.
I believe that the Museums and Galleries Commission is rather reluctant to take on that task. However, when I read the remit of the Museums and Galleries Commission it is quite clear that if the board of trustees, the chairman and the director wish it, the commission has a function to perform. As regards the members of the commission, they need not all be involved, but half a dozen have great qualifications for trying to help and I use that phrase so far as it is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I have discussed the subject and I think he feels with me that we should follow that. If the board of trustees felt able to do that, a lot of the outcry in the present situation might become less strident. I hope that something will come out of this which will calm everybody. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, neither he nor any of us knows whether all the proposals are right or wrong. But let us or the board take advantage of the expertise of the Museums and Galleries Commission to see where it can assist. Obviously the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, cannot commit his people, as he said, but I hope and believe that the pressures will lessen and the situation calm down.
792
I have one last request which is that when the progress continues, I hope that the directors and others involved with the museum will make progress reports so that all of us can follow what is happening. Progress reports do not have to be produced every week or every month, but only at an appropriate time. Let us keep in touch with what is happening. If things go well, we shall give the museum all the support we can. The aim of everyone is the well-being of the V&A.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I enter this debate with some diffidence as, unlike many other noble Lords who have contributed to it, my qualifications are rather limited. Although I have been a regular visitor to the Victoria and Albert Museum during my adult life, unlike other noble Lords I have never been involved in the administration of that great institution, nor do I know many of the personalities involved. However, I am a member of the court and council of another museum, which is happily not faced with quite the same range of problems.
As it happens, I am also a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission. The noble Earl who has just spoken made what I took to be a flattering reference to the capabilities of the Museums and Galleries Commission. I am not entirely certain whether that commission is qualified or equipped to act in an arbitral role in this sensitive situation. I suspect that that is what the noble Earl had in mind. I must certainly emphasise that any views I express today are entirely my own. I am certainly not authorised to speak on behalf of my colleagues.
I shall be very happy, however, to draw the conclusions of the noble Earl to the attention of my colleagues. I have no doubt they will read the whole debate with extreme interest. But, as a member of the council of another museum and as a member of the commission, I am concerned to see what general principles can be extracted and what general lessons may be learnt from this rather melancholy episode.
The question set for our debate tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has, as one would suspect, been rather carefully constructed so as to enable such noble Lords as are so minded to make ritual denunciations of the parsimony of this Government's public expenditure policy. I flinch under the lash of my noble friend Lord Carrington, for, as Chief Secretary, I bore some responsibility for public expenditure at a certain point in my career. I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his trustees at an earlier stage. I shall leave it to the noble Lord to say on another occasion whether they derived much satisfaction from that encounter. I am delighted also that the question draws into our debates a Government spokesman in the person of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I have no doubt she will bring her normal robust good sense to conclude the fevers of debate.
As I see the position, I doubt whether the Government have much direct responsibility in this matter. However, I shall endeavour to deal with the cogent points put by noble Lords from various sides of the House. I readily concede, as general questions

793
of museum administration and indeed of the cultural life of this country are involved, and as the Victoria and Albert Museum is a most distinguished national institution, that its affairs must be a perfectly proper subject for our debate.
I also concede that the Government are responsible in a large measure, although not exclusively, for funding the national museums and galleries. But I think it is a little far-fetched and rather distorts the tenor of the debate to trace to the Government's public expenditure policy the genesis of the problems with which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and his fellow trustees have had to deal. If one were to explore that further, it would lead to a rather repetitious debate because this question has been the subject of so many debates both here and in another place. Indeed, as a former Chief Secretary, I would be more concerned to see whether the income of any particular museum has been well controlled and well spent.
I was not impressed by the fact that 83 per cent. of the income of the Victoria and Albert Museum was spent on salaries. Two conclusions could be drawn from that: first, that the museum was underfunded or, secondly, that it was not well administered. There is a need for all great institutions, whether in the private or public sector, to have a regular critical, searching, shake-up of their administrative procedures and their staff from time to time, painful though that may be for those who are subjected to that scrutiny.
The Government are responsible for the appointment of the chairman and trustees. Beyond that, responsibility for the running of the museum or gallery must rest with those trustees. If I have the constitutional position wrong, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, whose speech we eagerly await, will correct me. That said, I am surprised that so many noble Lords who have taken issue with the Government's approach to cultural questions and questions of the arts should find that unattractive. I should have thought that they would have applauded any measures to put a little distance between the administration of those great institutions and the shifts of Government policy.
It might be proper, although a little tasteless, to debate the personalities and qualifications of the chairman and the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is capable of defending himself and his actions, but his colleagues are not represented here or perhaps so well equipped to defend themselves. I suspect, however, that in this particular area governments, of whatever party, will always be thought to have got it wrong. Whether partisan bias is attributed to them or lack of sensitivity, criticism is always made of the appointments they make in this very sensitive field.
In relation to the implication of the vigorous points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Goodman, I should point out that the reservoir of people who are equipped, by their stringent standards, to perform satisfactorily the role of trustee of a great national institution is nothing like so large as they would imagine.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? Since an interpretation is being put on what I said, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that I am concerned only about the way the people in question were treated. It is not a question of whether the trustees are well equipped to deal with museum problems; it is a question of whether they are well equipped to deal with human problems.
Lord Rees: My Lords, certain slighting comments were made—I think that that was the implication—by the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, of the qualifications of those with a business background to sit among the trustees. I should have thought that business people frequently have to deal with the practical consequences of the contraction or takeover of a business. If I have misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, I shall very readily withdraw.
However, he said—and I think that I made an accurate record—that there was no point in giving the trustees more than a quarter of an hour to consider the paper that was circulated (and I make no comment on the amount of time that was given to them) because they would not have understood the implications of what they were called on to do. If I have not recorded what was said accurately I shall readily withdraw and give way to the noble Lord should he wish to intervene again.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I do not wish to make a second speech, but I did not mention a businessman in the course of my speech. I welcome well-informed businessmen because they know how to treat their staff.
Lord Rees: My Lords, it may be that the thrust of the noble Lord's remarks was not directed at any particular commercial qualification. However, I believe that he was fairly brutal in his condemnation of the intellectual qualifications of the trustees over whom the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has to preside.
Much of the debate both inside this Chamber and outside it has concentrated, sometimes in a veiled manner and sometimes explicitly, on the personalities, defects, qualities and methods of the various people involved. Of course, that may be inevitable. I well understand the sensitivities of those people who have given long and distinguished service to the museum and whose careers may have been terminated. It would perhaps be idle for me to express the hope that they will be treated as generously as may be within the constraints under which a public institution operates.
However, I must say that, in spite of some experience of the rough and tumble of debate in another place, I have been surprised by the sharpness and acerbity of debate both inside this Chamber and in the world outside. I had always assumed that debates in the world of the arts would be characterised by a taste and refinement which is absent from the brutal world of politics. I have been sadly disabused of that illusion.
I believe that a more fruitful area of debate from which some general conclusions may be usefully drawn concerns the structure of management of a

795
great national institution and how a proper balance may be struck between administration, presentation—which is not necessarily the same thing as administration—and scholarship. Each aspect of a museum's activities demands different skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, perceptively observed, such skills are rarely found combined in one person.
The new structure proposed for the Victoria and Albert Museum might appear to involve a clear divide between curatorial and scholarly functions. I suspect that after a few years, like so many reforms undertaken in this country, the substance may prove to be rather different from the form and that the changes will turnout to be less acute than they threaten to be at the moment. I cannot believe that in a small society, such as that constituted by a museum, cross-fertilisation will not occur and that individuals will not move from one discipline to another or from one department to another. For the moment I suspend judgment. I believe that the trustees, the new management and the new structure deserve the benefit of doubt.
It must also be recalled that the reforms were undertaken in response, first, to the report of the National Audit Office and then to the report of the Public Accounts Committee—and all those trained in parliamentary life and government have learned to genuflect, whether rightly or wrongly, to that august Gladstonian body. The report of the Public Accounts Committee required more than a merely formal and superficial response. Later and, I hope, detached from the heat and dust of controversy that this episode has generated, we may be able to see whether those measures at the Victoria and Albert Museum have succeeded in attaining their objectives and whether any general lessons can be learned by other museums and galleries. For the moment, I can only wish that great institution well.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chairman of that much maligned, much abused body, the Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. If I were to try to answer all the points that have been raised about the museum, noble Lords would be here late into the night. In addition, I should steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose winding up contribution and answers to some of the questions I much look forward to hearing. I thought that I would deal with the easy ones myself and leave her with the snorters.
Perhaps I could just touch on one or two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked about charging institutions for the services provided by the museum. Let me reassure him that the trustees have no plans for instituting charges for services, although if funding becomes much tighter we may have to think about charging the Government. I should say that that is a joke. The noble Lord asked about the advertising campaign last year and whether it was proper that the contract should have gone to Saatchi and Saatchi. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, may wish to comment on that, but I simply say
796
that Saatchi and Saatchi have been the agents for the Victoria and Albert Museum for a long time, long before Mr. Maurice Saatchi came on to the board as a trustee. Mr. Saatchi takes no part in the arrangement of the contracts or in the arrangements made under them, although as a trustee he is there if and when we discuss those matters on the board.
I shall be dealing with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said in the main part of my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and others have commented unfavourably on some of the exhibitions that have taken place in the Victoria and Albert Museum when they have been sponsored by commercial concerns. A good deal of fun has been had about the Sock Shop. There are three reasons for having exhibitions of this kind. I hope that the noble Lord will think that they are good ones. The first is that we are the national museum of art and design. We are the national museum of contemporary design. We take pride in having artefacts of contemporary design in textiles, ceramics, metalwork and in other parts of the museum. I believe that it is wholly within the museum's terms of reference that it should have exhibitions which enable us to show the best of contemporary design.
The second reason—and it is the reason that applied in particular to the Elton John exhibition—is that such exhibitions, which are lively, encourage young people to come to the museum. In that period the exhibition brought in a large number of visitors, —much larger than we normally have, and some did not just go to the Elton John exhibition but came to the museum itself. It seems to me a very good thing that people should come into the museum in this way and learn to think of it not just as a historic museum of dead gothic sculptures and the rest. Of course those exhibitions bring us in a little money, and we are not reluctant to accept it. However, I should not like noble Lords to think that that was the primary objective of the exhibitions. They serve the purposes of the museum in illustrating contemporary design and bringing people into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked about disposals and implied that they will increase. I shall return to that in a moment or two.
I shall be dealing with much of the other comments as I go along. I shall come to the main body of what I should like to say. First, on the trustees, when it is not being suggested that we are gutless, it is suggested, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that we are a bunch of hard-faced businessmen dedicated exclusively to saving money and avoiding loss, without regard for the purposes for which the museum exists or the welfare of the staff. It is quite simply untrue.
The trustees come from various and varied backgrounds. Some from politics. I am sorry that my colleague on the board of trustees, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, cannot be here tonight. He has been unwell. I am glad to say that he is making a good recovery. Otherwise I am sure that he would be with us tonight. Some trustees come from the public service. I need say no more. Others come from the arts, the academic world, from the world

797
of designers and from connoisseurship, as well as from industry and commerce. The hard-faced businessmen, if I may quote the phrase that has been used, are very much in the minority. All these people accept appointment because they care for and are happy to work for the museum. They give it a lot of unpaid time and they bring to their service a balance of appreciation of the artistic and scholarly values of the museum and an understanding of the practical problems of managing a large organisation.
There is some suggestion that we are all appointed with some undisclosed and sinister mandate from the Prime Minister. We are of course all appointed by the Prime Minister because that is how Parliament said that we should be appointed in the National Heritage Act. But none of us is given any mandate by the Prime Minister other than that implied or stated in the definition of our responsibilities in the Act of Parliament. If one looks down the names of trustees, one sees that it is no more than a bad joke to suggest that they are appointed because each trustee is "one of us", I believe is the phrase, or is there to do the Prime Minister's bidding. They have accepted appointment simply with the objective of serving the best interests of the museum.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, hinted at a third point, that perhaps one reason why the trustees have approved the proposals for restructuring is that we want to go for a systematic policy of disposal in order to finance running costs. Again that is quite untrue. The trustees' powers to dispose are defined in statute and they are narrowly limited. We have only recently informed the Minister for the Arts, in answer to a consultation paper issued by him, that we do not seek any extension of those powers. We are there to be custodians and preservers of the heritage of collections in the museum and not to knock them down to the highest bidder.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said most of what I wanted to say about the director of the museum. I deplore as strongly as anybody the personal and sometimes vicious attacks that have been made on her, and most of all the attack made on her by her predecessor who does not know her. It was an astonishing and shameful example of rancour and spite.
I sometimes believe that one of the director's problems is that she is not a member of what is sometimes called the Courtauld Mafia. I regret to say that in some cases it looks as though one of her faults, which I am afraid she cannot do anything about, is that she is a woman. I was not a trustee when the director was appointed so I cannot be held responsible for the appointment but I should have been perfectly happy to be. It was an extremely good appointment. She is a highly intelligent, competent, courageous and caring person. She has a first-class honours degree in art history and understands and values scholarship. She came to the museum first in 1985 to take charge of the National Art Library, and as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said she has transformed that. She has been in the V&A quite long enough to hold well-informed and clear views of the museum's strengths, weaknesses, needs and opportunities.
798
One of the charges made is that the, curatorial staff were not sufficiently consulted before the director's plans for restructuring were put before the trustees. If it is said that the curators were rot consulted on the specific document of proposals put to the trustees, that is true, but the proposals came after a prolonged process of discussion inside the museum, both at formal meetings and informal gatherings, extending over many months. In the course of those discussions various possible structures were canvassed, including a structure which was much along the lines of that now proposed. The discussions showed that there was a considerable measure of agreement among the curatorial staff on the problems which the museum faced and on the objectives which the museum should be setting itself. It was clear that there was no prospect of agreement on matters of organisation between those who were deeply and sincerely attached to the status quo and those who accepted that some change was a necessary condition for dealing with the problems and achieving the objectives.
The director listened to all the points of view through all the long months of discussion. She did not start with a preconceived commitment to the changes she eventually proposed, but gradually over the months of discussion she came to the conclusion that tinkering with the existing organisation would not be sufficient and that what was needed was radical change. Before bringing her proposals to the board the director discussed them with the board's senior staff appointments committee, by whom they were unanimously agreed, so that when they came before the board there was a body of trustees already familiar with the proposals.
Representatives of the staff were informed about the proposals in strict confidence or the morning of 26th January. That was not consultation. Inevitably perhaps, the proposals leaked immediately that morning not only around the museum but to the press. The board of trustees discussed them in the afternoon. The paper was available to trustees to read only 15 or 30 minutes before the meeting, but it is not true to say that the discussion, as it were, started cold. The trustees had been informed about the progress of discussions inside the museum over many months and they were well aware of the issues that were involved.
Some trustees would undoubtedly have liked to have had more time to consider all the detailed implications and they said so. But the restructuring proposal was generally welcomed and approved of. There was a long discussion, not merely a 15 minute discussion, to which every trustee present contributed. They all endorsed the proposals in principle. It was accepted, particularly as the proposals had leaked, that it was important to avoid a period of prolonged uncertainty. It was also accepted that it would be impossible to consider the detailed implementation of the proposals until they were agreed in principle and had been made public. Therefore the proposals were unanimously approved by the trustees.
It was clear from the papers considered by the senior staff appointments commit tee and by the trustees that, as under the restructuring proposals

799
the materials departments as such would disappear, the posts of the keepers of those departments would cease to exist. Under the Civil Service rules—the procedures which apply in museums as an inheritance from the days when they were a department of the Civil Service—management is under an obligation to offer voluntary redundancy terms to staff whose posts are to cease to exist. Offers were made accordingly—in the most generous terms available to us under the rules of the scheme—to nine members of the curatorial staff including five keepers of departments, on 3rd February. Those concerned were asked to respond within 14 days. Eight of the nine accepted the offer and will cease to be employed as members of the staff of the museum at the end of this week. The ninth elected not to accept the offer and is being found new duties in the museum.
The management has been accused of precipitate haste in that process. There were two reasons for proceeding without delay. The announcement of the proposals inevitably created great uncertainty in the museum. It was felt—and the Treasury advised us —that in such circumstances there was much to be said for moving sooner rather than later in order to reduce uncertainty. The Treasury also advised that in Civil Service practice two weeks was a reasonable period in which to give those concerned an opportunity to consider their response to the offers made.
The other factor is that, for unavoidable reasons, there were unspent funds in the museum's building grant for the current financial year. The Office of Arts and Libraries was prepared to allow them to be used to meet the costs of the redundancies. It had to be assumed that those funds would not be available after 31st March, 1989, because if they are not used by the end of the financial year they are lost. The museum's financial prospect for the financial year 1989–90 was such that it was clear that it would be virtually impossible to find the money in that financial year.
It has been alleged that the meetings with the director at which the offers of voluntary redundancy were made were brief. If so, it was by the choice of those concerned and not by the director. She would have been ready for more extended meetings and would have agreed to see anyone who wished to return—as one or two did—in order to have further discussions before deciding whether to accept the offer. Some of those concerned sought clarification of the terms of the offer from the staff of the museum. But the first the director heard from most of them was in the form of a letter sent to her 11 days after the offers were made by a firm of solicitors which had been instructed only the previous day. Those concerned were under no compulsion or pressure from the management to accept the offer. It was open to them to find out from their union or legal advisers, if not from the management, the kinds of possibilities and choices that would be open to them if they did not do so.
The acceptance of voluntary redundancy does not preclude a continuing association with the museum as a consultant or adviser. I am glad to be able to
800
tell your Lordships that two of the eight people concerned have already agreed to act in that capacity. I am glad that their knowledge and experience will continue to be available to the museum. I shall be glad to know that others concerned might be interested in such possibilities.
I should like to explain the proposals briefly because I find that there exists some uncertainty about them——
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way because he is now turning away from the general thrust of the criticisms which have been made? He has not dealt with the main attack which was launched on the meeting of 26th January which was this. There was not one mention in the paper put before the trustees that nine scholars would be offered redundancy. There was not one word about it nor was anything said in the interview with journalists from The Times three days later. That was the point that was being put.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. At the meeting on 26th January the trustees were well aware that there would be what is sometimes called "a human cost". It was not specifically set out in the paper, but it was of course made clear that the disappearance of the departments in question would mean that certain posts would cease to exist and the position of the keepers concerned was clearly something which was going to have to be dealt with. So although the paper is not clear about it, I can assure your Lordships that the fact that there would be such a course was in the minds of the trustees at that meeting.
To turn back to the proposals themselves, the museum has been organised for the past 80 years into materials-based departments each in the charge of a keeper with responsibility for all aspects, collection management as well as scholarship and research, of a particular type of objects, ceramics, textiles and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, said, I think, that it was not necessary to separate research and administration. I understand and sympathise with that point of view, but the fact is that collection management has become increasingly complex and technical. Curators for many years have been complaining that the requirements of collection management are reducing the time and resource that they have available for scholarly work. At the same time, as several of your Lordships have reminded us, the museum has come under severe criticism in another place for its shortcomings in collection management.
The director's proposals are designed to provide more opportunities for curators to pursue the work of scholarship and research by concentrating those aspects of the work in a new research department, relieved of the obligations and responsibilities for collection management. That will be undertaken by a new registrar's department, which will specialise in those aspects of the museum's responsibilities. In any organisation, as your Lordships will well know, you have to break it down in one way or another into departments. The lines may go this way or that way, but whichever way the departmental lines are

801
drawn, it becomes necessary to create cross-liaisons if the operation is to be successfully carried out. So it is in the museum.
Both these departments will be staffed by members of the curatorial grades. There will be arrangements for close liaison between them, as well as crosspostings—to take up the point referred to by one speaker—which will ensure that members of the curatorial staff reach senior levels with experience of both departments. Two new assistant director posts are being created to support the director and take some of the load off the director. Both the research department and the registrar's department will come under the supervision of the assistant director (collections). I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that that is a crucial appointment. We are taking a great deal of trouble about it and we are determined to make the best possible appointment we can of a curator, or somebody with experience of that kind in the museum world, who will have the knowledge and the personal qualities to command the confidence and respect of the staff.
The research department, as the director has described it, will be the power-house of the museum. It will have groups of staff specialising in particular classes of objects, rather like departments in a university faculty. Members of the research department will be responsible for advising the director and the trustees on acquisitions and disposals. They will be consulted about the display of objects in the museum and about loans from other institutions. They will be assured of immediate, direct and unrestricted access to the objects which are the subject of their study and research. The museum will continue to provide through the research department the service of advice and opinions which it now provides to other museums and learned institutions, to the art trade and to the Government.
It is fighting with false fire to suggest that these proposals, or the departure of five keepers, spell the end of object-based scholarship at the V&A. Of course the trustees regret the departure of the keepers and the others who have decided to accept an offer of voluntary redundancy. It represents a loss of resource to the museum, which will be diminished to the extent that those concerned wish, or are able, to act as consultants or advisers. But to suggest or imply that these events will mark the end of scholarship at the V&A is not only absolutely without justification: it is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, pointed out, extremely unfair to the considerable number of other distinguished scholarly curators in the museum.
I should simply add that at their meeting this morning the trustees re-affirmed their support for the proposals which were approved on the 26th January, invited the director to make recommendations as soon as possible on their detailed implementation and agreed that a committee of trustees should be established to assist the director and advise the trustees on matters related to that implementation. I should also say that there are and will be arrangements for close consultation of the staff about the implementation because of course
802
the success or otherwise of the proposals will rest on the detailed arrangements made to put them into effect.
I was interested in the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the Museums and Galleries Commission should be brought into the picture. If a body of trustees is appointed to run such a place as the Victoria and Albert Museum, I think that it has to be allowed to get on with the job. That is the job that it is appointed to do. I suspect that that will be the view of the Museums and Galleries Commission. I should not feel able to commit the museum to seeking the advice of the commission without consulting my fellow trustees and, of course, the director. If in the process of detailed implementation there are points that the MGC thinks that it can usefully offer, we shall listen with great interest and respect. We have a good relationship.
The purposes of the trustees and the director can be readily summarised. They are to maintain and improve standards of scholarship; to improve standards of object conservation and collection management so that we can meet the criticisms made of that; to make our collections more accessible and attractive to the public so as to make more people aware of the variety, splendour and beauty of the objects in our collections and of their historical and cultural meaning and importance—that is why we hope to open a branch of the museum in Bradford—and to play what I hope will be an increasing part in public education at all levels, school, higher and adult.
All that has to be achieved within the manpower and financial resources available to the museum. This is not the occasion for me to moan about financial stringency. Your Lordships have done it for me. I shall simply reiterate the concern that we all feel—I am sure that the concern is not confined to the Victoria and Albert Museum—at the way in which the costs rise, as a result of decisions not taken within the institutions, very much faster than the i funds available to us from government. That is a process that cannot go on for ever. This financial stringency at least imposes upon us and those responsible for managing the museum the necessity as well as the duty of managing every aspect of it as efficiently and effectively as possible.
I put the maintenance and improvement of standard of scholarship first because that is not an optional extra; it is fundamental to the achievement of all the other purposes. The director would never have made her restructuring proposals and the trustees would never have approved them if they had believed that they would threaten scholarship in the museum. They recognise the importance of what has been described as continuity of scholarship and believe that the proposals will help to preserve that continuity and promote high standards of scholarship and research. Whether we can go so far as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, suggested and employ scholars to write biographies of Proust I am not sure. With our present financial situation I am not sure that we can afford outdoor relief for students of French literature or other studies wholly unrelated to the purposes and collections of the museum.

803
In the public debate that has followed the announcement of the proposals I have detected an underlying profound but I think unspoken difference of view about the purposes of the museum. I have received, as have all my fellow trustees, many letters of concern, clearly often deeply felt, about the proposals. Some were from ceramics and textile departments as far a field as California. I respect that concern, although for the reasons that I have given I think that it is unfounded.
All the letters that I have received come from what might be termed insiders; from other museums, from societies interested in the kind of objects that the V&A has in its collection and a few from the trade. It is not clear that all of my correspondents have fully understood the nature of the proposals but all are concerned that the restructuring and the departure of the five keepers will mean the decline or death of scholarship at the V&A and of the role it plays in the world of art scholarship. Not one of them mention the role that the museum plays, or should play, in serving the wider public.
If it is the new museology—an unlovely word—to want to improve the accessibility and attractiveness of the museum to the general public and to play a greater part in public education, the trustees and the director must plead guilty to being new museologists. I prefer to see it as a fulfilment of the public responsibility laid upon the trustees by Parliament and a reaffirmation of the ideals and aspirations which inspired the founders of this and other artistic and education institutions in South Kensington in the 19th century. That is the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
Sir Henry Cole, the first director of the museum in the mid-1850s, defined the purposes of the V&A as being, first, to educate the public in matters of design; secondly, to educate designers by exhibiting the finest examples from the past; and, thirdly, to educate historians who wish to write about design. As the museum has developed it sometimes seems as if we are in danger of concentrating on the third of these purposes to the exclusion of the first two. The V&A is unique in the variety and size of its collections: the greatest collection of European sculpture outside Italy; one of the largest collections of ceramics in the world; and the largest collection of Indian objects outside the sub-continent. Diversity is in the very nature of this museum and the richness and splendour of its collections carries with it the responsibility for making them as accessible and as attractive to the public as we can and as resources allow.
We now have to turn our attention, as trustees, to the task of implementing the proposals to make sure that we achieve the objects I have described. The efficacy of the restructuring will, of course, depend not only on the leadership of the director but also on the understanding and co-operation of the staff, which I am sure she will have. It will take some time to bring the restructuring into effect and it will be a year or two before it is possible to begin to assess the effectiveness of the changes. However, the director and the trustees are determined that they shall, and we confidently believe that they will, serve
804
the purposes which I have described and prove to be of great benefit to the health and welfare of the museum and to its standing and reputation as the national museum of art and design and, I am proud to say, one of the greatest museums in the world.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and having regard to the hour, can he tell the House whether at this fateful meeting the trustees were told that the employees concerned would have their employment terminated on this sort of notice? They would have 14 days in which to make a decision and they were not told of the alternative; that if they refused to accept redundancy they would have their employment terminated. The noble Lord has given, if I may say so, a masterly dissertation on the nature of the museum but he has not addressed himself to the matters that trouble me.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, the trustees were aware that early retirement would be involved. How that early retirement would come about was not clear. We were under obligation, as I mentioned in my speech, to offer voluntary redundancy in the first instance. For what reason I cannot say, the advice we were given by those best qualified to give it was that we were not to discuss with those concerned the alternatives at that stage. That would not, of course, have prevented them from discussing it with their unions or their legal advisers. We were precluded from a discussion of the alternatives at that stage.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, can the noble Lord say who gave that extraordinary advice?
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, the advice came from the Government.
10.34 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this has been a long but enthralling debate and I shall endeavour not to delay the House for too long.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has taken part in the debate. His statement that the maintenance and improvement of scholarship must be at the top of the priorities is welcome to me and, I think, to all who are here. I do not know how far it answers some of the points made in the very strong speech introducing this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Basically I am in favour of the new structure that is suggested. It was quite obvious that something had to be done about the museum. It is not as if it was progressing from the status quo, working extremely well, or that it was not short of money.
Having read the various papers and talked to people, and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, I still have an uneasy feeling about the secrecy that seems to have covered so much of what took place. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, tried to get an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about the advice that nothing should be said to anybody. We immediately have a very secret kind of operation in which there was only 15 minutes to consider the plan. Again, I feel that this is all in aid of some quite unnecessary secrecy that in the end

805
resulted, as we have all seen, in a situation that is going to take some time to calm down and for peace to be restored.
The noble Lord said that the Treasury felt that there was much to be said for moving sooner rather than later, but I do not believe that sooner means almost immediately and without any warning. If it was necessary to get rid of a number of the keepers at that time—and some of them were near retirement anyway—it could have been worked out over a reasonably short period. I believe that is extremely important when one considers the human cost, which is a matter that should have been considered throughout. In answer to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said that the trustees were told that there would be a human cost, but they were not told exactly what it would be, since, as we all know, the question of redundancy for nine people does not appear in any of the papers.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of the trustees. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, made a point about this, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Annan. There is no one among the trustees who has any experience of working in a museum. We know that there is one vacancy because Professor Kemp has resigned. Will this fact be made a point of so that we have a more mixed flavour of people, if I may put it that way, than there is among the trustees at the moment?
I agree that it is important to have business people on such bodies. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment I also appointed such people. But there is too much of a sense of business among them and not enough of art and knowledge of museums, which I believe is extremely important. For some years I was a governor of the British Film Institute and we had a wide range of people with expertise and knowledge in different fields. Always there was a nucleus of people who really understood and who were involved in film-making, distribution and the industry generally. One knew that there was this built-in expertise.
When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment I was responsible for the upkeep of the fabric of the museum, whereas the Minister with responsibility for the arts was responsible for the content. In that delightful part of my job I spent a considerable amount of time visiting different museums, getting to know the directors and many of the keepers and also the boards of trustees. One felt that those boards of trustees were a more mixed cultural bag then there appears to be at the moment at the V&A. One could have conversations about the museum with people who were concerned about these matters. One cannot for the sake of sponsorship go too far outside that circle.
The noble Lord said that the people were not compelled to accept the offer. It seems to me that a gun was placed against their heads. Does he realise the damage caused by the way in which it was done? The director has said that if she had to do it again she would do it rather differently, which was, I thought, a frank admission. In mentioning her I must also say a few words in support of those noble
806
Lords who rightly complained about the treatment she received both in sexist terms and because she was so often referred to as a mere librarian. I am sure that I do not have to remind the House that Frank Francis, a one time director of the British Museum, was a librarian. He was proud of the fact and boasted about it.
I am not clear about how all these plans will work. There are many gaps in the explanations put forward. Even the paper for trustees strikes me as rather an inadequate document. I agree that most trustees worth their salt would have either objected or said that they needed longer to read it. They would have asked for another emergency meeting and insisted on having the time to go through it to understand it properly. The plans that are to be put into operation are not clear enough. I should like to be convinced that there will be no loss of scholarship and research and that this plan will work to the advantage of the museum. The chairman, the trustees and the director must explain it in greater detail to us all.
This has gone beyond the museum world. I do not believe it essential that one should have the collection, the management and the research absolutely tied together like siamese twins. When Kenneth Clark wrote his great book on Leonardo, he was not the curator of the drawings at Windsor; and nor did he have to be. He had access to the exhibits, which was the main thing. He did not need to manage, and may well have been delighted that someone else had to do so.
We must all try to get the whole thing moving. On Monday night I was at the party at Fishmongers' Hall. It was more of a lively wake than a party. I must tell the noble Lord, who I do not suppose was there——
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I was not invited!
Baroness Birk: I am sorry to hear that, but I must stress that I was not giving the party. However, my Lords, there was a feeling of anger. indeed, one could breathe the anger and despair in the air. It seemed that what had been done had—however unwittingly—created that feeling, and that it was something which really ought to be put right as soon as possible.
It was suggested to me that the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, might be a way to deal with the situation—that is, to let the Museums and Galleries Commission carry out an inquiry into the matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is quite right when he says that unless the trustees ask for that to be done and are prepared to embark upon such a course of action, one cannot go along that road. But, if they do, I think that any road one can go along to get some form of reconciliation would be welcomed, so that the whole matter can be dampened down. Further, I am quite sure that if any of us who have taken part in the debate can do anything which is within our powers, we shall most certainly do so. I say that because the one thing which we all have in common in what has really been I think a pretty moderate debate—indeed, I thought that feelings might fly even higher—is our feeling of goodwill and also our

807
great affection towards the museum. We are all anxious to see the matter sorted out, even if it means that some words have to be eaten all round and some reverses of policy undertaken. In my view, the end is worth those means.
10.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I should like to echo the last words expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she spoke with affection about the V&A. I have no qualifications, save perhaps those of a consumer in that I visit museums. My noble friend Lord Eccles spoke of mandarins and I am highly conscious of the fact that I shall have to tread warily like Agag when following such a galaxy of eminence this evening. I understand so well my noble friend's references to children. I used to take parties of Leys boys around the Fitzwilliam Museum and many a hand did I slap. Indeed, I used to make the boys write to me after such expeditions and received such replies as, "Loved the armour; hated the crockery". I just hope that a reply later in life would show a little more appreciation for Bow, Famille Rose and Kaendler.
I think we would all agree that the Victoria and Albert Museum can be justly proud of its high standards of scholarship and research: and as an institution of international renown it needs to build on this reputation, encouraging younger scholars to maintain the high standards that we have come to expect.
It is worth remembering the four main functions of the trustees as set out under the governing statute, the National Heritage Act, 1983, which are as follows: to care for, preserve and add to the objects in their collections; to secure that the objects are exhibited to the public; to secure that the objects are generally available to persons seeking to inspect them in connection with study or research; and to generally promote the public's enjoyment and understanding of art, craft and design, both by means of the board's collections and by such other means as they consider appropriate. That is the base from which reorganisation stems. I say especially to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—who I see is not now in his place—that it is most important to remember that the responsibility lies with the trustees and not the Minister.
There can be no question of interference in the management. The V&A has the principle of devolution of authority, which is correct in such matters. The restructuring decisions are a matter for the board of trustees and the director only. They do not require government sanction.
There has been some concern in the media that curatorial staff will no longer have access to the collections. It is my understanding that is not the case. The experts in the proposed department of research will have immediate access to objects in the collection and will be consulted about display and storage of those objects. The research department will also advise on acquisitions and will be responsible for cataloguing the collections in their
808
care. Freed from the responsibilities of day to day housekeeping and working closely with the objects, the scholars will be able to concentrate further on research and extending our knowledge and understanding of the collections. Concern about the nature of the registrar's department expressed in the media has also been based on misunderstandings; in fact it will be staffed essentially by curators, knowledge and experience of the objects being essential skills for the job.
The objectives of the director and trustees are worthwhile and I believe that they should be supported. The proposed changes, which will be introduced over the next three years and which will be constantly monitored by the director and senior management, are in response to the changing needs of the museum. They have emerged from full staff consultation within the museum during the past year.
The board itself consists of individuals drawn from every field of experience, including scholarship, the arts, business and the public service. Each trustee is chosen for the skills and experience that he or she can bring to the museum.
There has been speculation in the media, which your Lordships may have seen, on relations between senior management and staff at the museum. That is naturally a matter for the director and trustees. However, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts, in another place, attaches great importance to management of staff and sees this as a key issue in any restructuring plans for the museum. Indeed, earlier this week, in another place, he assured honourable Members that the director is most anxious to maintain good relations with the staff and is making every effort to sustain high morale.
The Government themselves have had no part to play in directing policy at the Victoria and Albert Museum and I am confident that your Lordships will agree that this is surely right. The Minister has pursued his policy of devolution of authority, believing the board and the director more suitable to decide where their priorities must lie and how the museum should move ahead. Your Lordships may be assured that any funding implications this year deriving from the reorganisation will be met wholly from the museum's own resources. No additional money has been offered by the Treasury or the Office of Arts and Libraries in relation to these proposals.
I shall quickly skip through some of the questions asked of me which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, did not cover in his very able speech. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked whether the trustees had informed the Office of Arts and Libraries of their view of the dispute. Yes, consultation has taken place. He also asked whether a trustee should benefit from his position. It is accepted that propriety must always be observed. If a subject is to be discussed in which a trustee has an interest that must be declared.
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and many other noble Lords referred to the museum's financial state. Since 1978–80, the Government's grant to the Victoria and Albert Museum for running costs has increased substantially in real terms. The allocations which the Minister for the Arts announced last

809
November, rolling forward the three-year settlements to 1991–92 will give the Victoria and Albert Museum a grant-in-aid totalling £24 million, including increases to help the museum to deal specifically with its priority concerns in the management of the collections and in the maintenance and refurbishment of the building.
My noble friend Lord Eccles, who has a very distinguished past in the world of the arts, said that some other museums have made substantial changes to their organisations. He is right. The National Maritime Museum and the Science Museum are two of the most recent examples.
Training courses were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. There are currently major developments in museum training. Key skills and competencies are being identified for all members of museum staff. The Minister for the Arts recently announced the establishment of a museums training institute, a subsidiary of the Museums Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, asked who would be responsible for loans. Decisions on loans will be taken by the registrar's department, which will be largely staffed by curators. Staff in curatorial departments will be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made a statement on the fact that voluntary redundancy terms had to be offered first. I think he said that the Government gave this advice. In point of fact the advice was given by the Treasury Personnel Policy Group. These are the experts in dealing with such matters.
I listened with interest to the words of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, concerning the commission. Equally, on the same subject, both my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made their stance clear. It is of course a matter for the trustees to decide.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked how the replacement trustee would be chosen. The trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum, as noble Lords know, are appointed by the Prime Minister. The Government pay close attention to the needs and wishes of the museums in making trustee appointments.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is absent, and it is to him that I address the last word in answer to his question. I can only emphasise what my right honourable friend has said in another place. Her Majesty's Government have every confidence in the director and trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum and fully support their objectives in restructuring the museum.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she answer the question I put to her? It concerned the total sum that the redundancies have cost the Government and the figure which I mentioned and which has been mentioned publicly of £1.75 million. Is that correct or not?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think it would be very productive for me to go into those details so late at night. I shall therefore write to the noble Lord.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, if I may intervene, the figure is not familiar to me but I think it includes all costs after the normal age of retirement, if it is a real figure. If that is the case, of course those costs would be incurred anyway; these are the pensions that would be payable anyway after the age of 60. I do not think they come into the calculation of the cost of early retirement.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE STAFF NUMBERS
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE STAFF NUMBERS
  BELGIAN TRAWLER LOSS
  BELGIAN TRAWLER LOSS
  TRAWLER LOSSES IN IRISH SEA
  TRAWLER LOSSES IN IRISH SEA
  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  CHAPEL ALLERTON HOSPITAL
  CHAPEL ALLERTON HOSPITAL
  NEWPORT IOW; ENERGY-SAVING HOSPITAL
  NEWPORT IOW; ENERGY-SAVING HOSPITAL
  NHS PERFORMANCE-RELATED CONTRACTS
  NHS PERFORMANCE-RELATED CONTRACTS
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM
  SALMON NETTING DATA
  SALMON NETTING DATA
  DRIFT NETTING BY IRISH VESSELS
  DRIFT NETTING BY IRISH VESSELS
  NITRATE POLLUTION: PREVENTIVE MEASURES
  NITRATE POLLUTION: PREVENTIVE MEASURES
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT PRICE
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT PRICE
  SHORT BROTHERS AND HARLAND: PRIVATISATION
  SHORT BROTHERS AND HARLAND: PRIVATISATION
  REPATRIATION OF SENTENCED PERSONS CONVENTION
  REPATRIATION OF SENTENCED PERSONS CONVENTION
  LAW OF BLASPHEMY: SCOPE
  LAW OF BLASPHEMY: SCOPE
  INFORM: BOARD OF GOVERNORS' REPORT
  INFORM: BOARD OF GOVERNORS' REPORT
  HORSERACE BETTING LEVY SCHEME1989–90
  HORSERACE BETTING LEVY SCHEME1989–90
  TENANTS' CHOICE: INTERACTION WITHPUBLIC HOUSING DISPOSALS
  TENANTS' CHOICE: INTERACTION WITHPUBLIC HOUSING DISPOSALS
  MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: NAO REPORT
  MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: NAO REPORT
  GREEN BELT MINERAL EXTRACTION
  GREEN BELT MINERAL EXTRACTION
  POLLUTION CONTROL: HMIP's FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
  POLLUTION CONTROL: HMIP's FIRST ANNUAL REPORT