Sitting of 8 May 1989

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

    Unfit Housing
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to tackle the problems of unfit houses in the south Wales valleys.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Since 1979, more than 61,000 homes in the valleys area have been improved at a cost of over £152 million. Over the three years of the programme for the valleys, we expect, on average, to see the renovation of some 10,700 valley homes per year. The last Labour Government were unable to match that average rate for the whole of the Principality during their last term in office.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that in the Rhondda alone, 5,000 people are on the waiting list for improvement grants and that it is estimated that 18,000 houses in the valleys need improvement grants, at a total cost of about £200 million? It is not the juggling of money, but new resources for valley communities that we require. Does the Minister accept that the con-trick of the Secretary of State—the valleys initiative—is no more acceptable in the Rhondda than it was to the electors of Pontrypridd or the Vale of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman's question is extraordinary. Clearly, he did not listen to my reply. He has not understood that 10,000 new homes will be built under the initiative, that it has been welcomed by all local authorities, industrialists and trade unionists, and that other people have rightly given it a firm welcome as bringing a new spotlight to Wales, which the hon. Gentleman seems to be willing to deny.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one is going to make progress with unfit houses in the valleys of Wales, one needs a policy for housing—an advantage not shared by the Labour party? What progress does my hon. Friend expect housing associations to make in dealing with unfit houses in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: The progress will be considerable. Under the programme for the valleys, about £8·6 million of special funding will be made available through Housing for Wales for approved development programmes in that area.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: What provisions does the Minister intend to make for those who have already applied for
    538
    improvement grants? Will he ensure that such people will be catered for, in addition to new people coming on to the scheme from 1 April 1990?
    Mr. Grist: I am assured by the councils concerned that if applications have been approved, they will be able to tit them in before the new scheme comes into play.
    Mr. Murphy: Why cannot the Minister accept that all responsible housing associations and similar bodies in Wales are saying that his means-tested improvement grants will mean that fewer people will take up the grants and that our housing stock is bound to suffer? Cannot he see that our south Wales valleys will reject this policy in the same way as they rejected the rest of the Government's policies in the county council elections last week?
    Mr. Grist: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be careful in what he says on this matter. I hope that he will tell his constituents—as I hope that his hon. Friends will—that the scheme produced under our new legislation will be the most generous ever, giving grants of up to 100 per cent. —which have never been available before—to those least able to pay. That will mean that about 54,500 houses in Wales will be eligible for 100 per cent. grants.

    Sheepmeat Regime
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy towards any measures arising from the current review of the sheepmeat regime which could disadvantage Welsh producers.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): 1 welcome the initiative to create a unified Community sheepmeat market, which offers the prospect of better access to continental markets However, we will continue to resist changes that would discriminate against producers in Wales and will seek to secure arrangements that will allow free and fair competition, provide support at reasonable cost and thus enable the industry in Wales to benefit from its natural production advantages and its efficiency.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that the 1988 agreement on sheepmeat stabilisers and the ewe premium was the result of short-term political expediency and was not in the long-term interests of either sheep producers or consumers in Wales? Will the Secretary of State now say to the people of Wales that he will use his good offices to ensure that the sheep sector in Wales is not damaged as the final result of the agreement on the sheep regime?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those views on the future of the sheepmeat regime are shared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have no doubt that we shall reach an agreement that will secure the continuation of sheep farming on the hills of Wales on a proper viable basis.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Minister see Commissioner MacSharry on BBC Wales yesterday? The Commissioner made it quite clear that the variable premium would have to be phased out by 1992. Does the Minister accept that if that happens, it will be a hammer blow to the small family farms which form the basis of the economic and social life

    539
    of much of upland Wales? If he accepts that those will be the consequences of the loss of the variable premium, will he press in Cabinet for the adoption of the measures that are available to the United Kingdom Government under the structures programme to assist by some means of direct compensation?
    Mr. Walker: Whatever Mr. MacSharry said, I remember the immense hostility expressed by the Opposition when, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I introduced the variable premium scheme. I am glad that they have at last paid tribute to that scheme. Having introduced that scheme, I wish to ensure that if there are to be changes in it, it continues to secure the viability of sheep farming in Wales.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wyn Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of people in full-time employment in Wales in June 1979; and what are the present figures.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The information is not available in the form requested.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not feel able to give us that information. The figures that I have secured from the Library show that more than 100,000 fewer full-time jobs exist in Wales than existed in 1979. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is because of that poor record on creating jobs that the electors of Pontypridd and the Vale of Glamorgan turned their backs on, and voted so resoundingly against, his vice-regal progress?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures are not available. He asked for the full-time employment figures, and there are no separate figures available for full-time male employment in Wales. That is why I could not meet his request, although I am delighted to answer the question. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such remarks about a Government under whom unemployment has fallen by 54,000 in the past two years and, given that inward investment is at an all-time high, I can understand the Opposition's discomfort at our success.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my right hon. Friend give figures to show the improvement in the strength of the work force during the past two years?
    Mr. Walker: The civilian work force has increased by 35,000, with a substantial increase both in the numbers attending places of higher education and in those on Government training programmes. Moreover the number of self-employed people is now rising sharply.
    Mr. Foot: If the comparative figures for people in full-time employment are available for England—as they are—why are similar figures not available for Wales?
    Mr. Walker: The figures for those in employment, as opposed to the unemployed, are given in a survey that does not give separate figures for part-time and for full-time employment.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that Wales is holding its share of inward investment, as compared with other parts of the United
    540
    Kingdom? Will he give us the latest figures for the number of jobs created by overseas companies that have set up in the Principality?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Wales's share of inward investment in the United Kingdom, in terms of related new jobs, was 20 per cent. in 1987. I am pleased to say that we have just received the provisional figures for 1988, which show that our share has increased to 22 per cent. of all inward investment in the United Kingdom. That compares with 6 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not the case that Wales now has 10 per cent. fewer jobs than in 1979, while East Anglia has enjoyed a 25 per cent. increase, and that economic growth and industrial investment in Wales has grown by only 1.4 per cent. per annum since 1979—only half the growth rate in the prosperous south-east of England? That does not amount to the economic miracle proclaimed by the Secretary of State. How does the Cabinet Minister, with supreme trumpeting skills, explain the Labour party's magnificent victories in the Vale of Glamorgan and in the county of Clwyd? Is the right hon. Gentleman to blame, or is it the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the NHS White Paper or the privatisation of water? I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in yesterday's Sunday Times to the effect that NHS issues were a factor. But, on St. David's day, he openly boasted in the House that, in Cabinet Committee, he himself helped to fashion the NHS's approach.
    Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that these questions are about employment.
    Mr. Walker: Rumour has it that the Vale of Glamorgan result was totally due to the enormous impact which the hon. Gentleman made on the campaign. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Gentleman that the fall in the Conservative vote in the 1986 Fulham by-election was rather larger than the fall in vote in the Vale of Glamorgan. We still won back the Fulham constituency by a large majority at the next general election.
    Mr. Soames: When it comes to trumpeting, will my right hon. Friend take up a suggestion which may help employment in Wales? Is he aware that this is the first time for many hundreds of years that there is no full-time regular battalion of soldiers stationed in Wales? Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and make sure that the military are properly represented in Wales, as they always have been and should be?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. My right hon. Friend is taking this matter fully into consideration. I hope that he will be able to make some proposals.

    Wales Tourist Board
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is undertaking, or plans to undertake, any review of the work of the Wales tourist board, analogous to the review of the tourist industry currently being undertaken in England; whether he has received any representations concerning the future structure, responsibilities and powers of the Wales tourist board; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I have no such plans. However, a number of interested bodies and individuals have made representations about the review in England and its possible implications for Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister recall that, last June, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a development strategy for tourism in Wales on the basis of considerable investment over a five-year period, based on section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969? Is he aware also that, from March of this year, there has been considerable agreement between local authorities in Wales and the Wales tourist board on investment of over £8 million for the Wales tourist board, to trigger a total investment of £73 million over the coming five years? Given that, will he give an assurance that the basis of that investment—section 4 of the Act—will definitely remain for the future?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course. That is one of the reasons why the review was confined to England. As the hon. Gentleman said, a five-year development strategy has been evolved by the Wales tourist board, and it is expected that it will trigger off about £73 million of private sector money and create 2,000 jobs. Therefore, there is every reason for us to continue as we are.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 9 March 1979, the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 5,697, 17,480 and 107,696, respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if he blows that trumpet much louder, we shall all suffer from industrial deafness? Is not the reality just a little different, considering that over the past decade, there has been a fall in investment of 2·7 per cent., compared with a 22·6 per cent. increase in the south-east of England, that our regional aid has been cut from £209 million to £104 million, and that our growth rate was only 1·4 per cent. over the decade, compared with double that in the south-east of England? Is it not time that we had a bit of modesty from the Government spokesman?
    Mr. Walker: When it comes to modesty about Wales, there is nobody better than the hon. Gentleman. He plays down the place the entire time. I am delighted, in spite of playing a different tune, that as a result of what is happening at the moment, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has dropped by 40 per cent. in the past two years. Inward investment has been at a record high. I shall continue trumpeting around the world to improve the situation still further.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State explain why unemployed people in my constituency received a document through their letter boxes this morning entitled:
    "Your guide to the community charge"?
    542
    Why did it arrive this morning, and not last Monday morning before the county council elections? Was it an unacceptable election manifesto for Conservatives at county council elections?
    Mr. Walker: I am sorry about any depression that the hon. Gentleman may have as a result of the county council elections. I recognise that in parliamentary and county council elections his party is having a pretty rough time at present. I am sure that that distribution was arranged by an office, but I do not know whether it is bringing good news or bad news, because I have not read the leaflet.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the problems of one group of workers and staff who are facing redundancy—the disabled people in Remploy factories in south Wales? Is he aware of the proposal that a number of staff who have been made technically redundant will have to reapply for their jobs? I remind him that we are talking about disabled people. If the Secretary of State has not heard about that proposal, will he call for a report and ensure that a bit of compassion is shown towards those employed in Remploy factories.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall certainly look into that. My last association with a Remploy factory was to open a new one, which meant a major extension for Remploy's activities. If there is a problem, I shall look into it.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend recall the winter of discontent in 1979 and its effect on jobs in Wales? What does he think will be the effect on inward investment prospects in Wales if the policy of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of scrapping the Conservative Government's industrial relations legislation and allowing secondary picketing were to become law?
    Mr. Walker: Wales, which has 5 per cent. of the population, currently gets 22 per cent. of all inward investment, which is a remarkable record and one which will not be helped or assisted in any way by the suggestion that what Wales wants to do is to return to nationalisation and to control by the trade unions.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Thatcherite single economic dogma has left significant weaknesses in the Welsh economy? I refer, for example, to the utter failure of the Government's training measures as instanced by the CBI in Wales, and to the fact that unemployment stands 45,000 higher than it did in 1979? Was not Lord Crickhowell correct in stating that there are no new policies, no new initiatives and little change in the scale of public spending?
    Mr. Walker: We currently have record investment in the valleys by a long way and we are spending £1 million per week on training programmes in the valleys. Expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency is 50 per cent. above what it was two years ago. I am glad that as a result of all that and of the higher production and the fall in unemployment, Wales is the most successful region in the United Kingdom.

    Patient Statistics
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were

    543
    treated in National Health Service hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1979.
    Mr. Grist: In 1987, 448,716 in-patients were treated and 516,861 new out-patients were seen in NHS hospitals in Wales. Comparable figures for 1979 were 349,695 in-patients and 428,739 out-patients. Those figures represent increases of 28 per cent. and 21 per cent., respectively, since 1979.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, above all others, show the improvement in the National Health Service since 1979?
    Mr. Grist: They certainly do, and they show the strain under which the Health Service is placed by an increase in demand and its success in meeting that demand. It is worth noting that during the period of the last Labour Government, in-patient cases increased by only 6 per cent. as opposed to 28 per cent. under this Government and that the number of new out-patients fell by 3 per cent. as opposed to rising by 20 per cent. under this Government.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Under-Secretry of State look at the out-patient figures because there is a crisis in the dermatology service in south Wales? In my constituency it now takes up to two years to get an appointment to see a consultant dermatologist. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the figures again and provide some more money to ensure that dermatology does not remain the Cinderella service of the Health Service?
    Mr. Grist: I am not sure about it being a Cinderella service, but we are certainly aware of the shortages in that area and are addressing them urgently.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that that dramatic increase in the number of patients treated in Wales has been made possible by the massive increase in Government spending in Wales on the NHS, which has increased from£11 per week for every household in Wales in 1978–79 to £36 per week for every household in Wales in 1989–90? Does he also agree that the NHS White Paper proposals, such as the appointment of more consultants and giving GPs their choice of hospitals, will ensure that that trend continues and that more patients are treated more quickly in the future?
    Mr. Grist: That is our precise intention—to give patients the choice, to give doctors the ability to offer the choice to their patients, and to provide the spur to the hospital services to make sure that choice is a reality. It is worth noting that under this Government the number of consultants has increased by 22·5 per cent., the number of registrars by more than 11 per cent., and the number of those directly concerned with patient care by more than 17 per cent. That is this Government's record.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What advice does the Minister offer my constituent who is 83 years old and needs an eye operation? That gentleman has had severely deteriorating eyesight for many years, and now he cannot read a newspaper or watch television. His quality of life is being severely jeopardised. All he needs is an operation to remove scar tissue from the eye and a slight cataract for which he has been told by his consultant he will have to wait seven months. He is 83 years old, and there is a seven-month waiting list for what is really a minor
    544
    operation. The same consultant told him that, if he had it done privately, he could do the operation for him straight away at a cost of about £1,000.
    Mr. Grist: I cannot give individual advice on such a case. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with details, we will look into the matter. It is worth noting that under our proposals the general practitioner of the hon. Gentleman's constituent would be able to look around for other waiting lists that very often would be a great deal shorter, but about which at present he may be entirely ignorant. The hon. Gentleman describes precisely the sort of situation that we wish to bring to an end.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Are not the very creditable increases in the number of patients being treated the real measure of the Government's commitment to continuing the expansion and improvement of the Health Service? Does my hon. Friend agree that that refutes the spurious claims about bed numbers? Because of the deployment of resources, under-utilised beds can reduce the number of people being treated.
    Mr. Grist: Certainly the enormous rise in day cases under this Government, which is a part of modern medicine, has made a tremendous change in the use of beds. As I know myself, people can go in and out of hospital under modern medication at a speed that was almost undreamed of when most of us were young.
    Mr. Michael: Rather than repeat statistics that he must know are misleading, will the Minister recognise that the health record of the Government, of which the Secretary of State has been a Member for 10 years, and their future health policies, which have been drawn up by a Cabinet Committee of which the Secretary of State was a member, were wholeheartedly rejected by the voters of the Vale of Glamorgan? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, exclude Wales from the proposals set out in the Health Service White Paper?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave misleading statistics. I believe that they will find, when the general election comes, that they have been rumbled. When we have a population with increasing health benefits, with more centenarians, with people living longer, better and more healthily, with more people being innoculated and vaccinated, and with people keeping their teeth longer, it staggers me that any hon. Member could say that the Health Service is failing under this Government.

    Single Market
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparations are being made by his Department for the introduction of the single European market on 1 January 1993.
    Mr. Peter Walker: My Department is actively engaged in a vigorous campaign to encourage Welsh businesses to prepare for the single European market. It provides information and expert advice on the key issues, and access to a wide variety of practical assistance, including the consultancies available under Enterprise Wales.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important decisions concerning 1992 are now being taken in Wales? What is the latest figure for inward

    545
    investment and what effect does my right hon. Friend expect that to have on exporting prospects for Wales in 1993?
    Mr. Walker: I agree that action is needed now. I am pleased to say that throughout the Principality a whole range of decisions is being taken by commercial concerns. Inward investment is transforming the Welsh economy as an exporting country. In fact, the five biggest inward investments of the past few years, when completed, will produce about £1 billion of exports per year.
    Dr. Thomas: Would the Secretary of State care to explain how the attitude of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Lingua programme is helpful to Welsh prisoners as they approach 1992?
    Mr. Walker: That is of no basic disadvantage; nor will it affect them.

    Regional Development
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has for changes to his regional development policy particularly in relation to Swansea and south-west Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am always looking to ensure that the Government's various mechanisms to sustain and stimulate development are effectively deployed. Over the past year unemployment in the Swansea and Llanelli travel-to-work area has fallen by nearly 3,800. I welcome the development of the Swansea bay partnership and the exciting link announced 10 days ago between British Urban Development and Swansea city council.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State examine the reasons why there is no significant Japanese investment in the area covered by the Swansea bay partnership and why we cannot attract Toyota? Would not he conclude that it is related to the removal of our regional development status and a failure to give adequate infrastructural investment to the area, by which I mean adequate access to the Channel tunnel and the quick completion of the Baglan-Lonlas motorway?
    Mr. Walker: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He gave Toyota as an example, but he will know that because of European Commission regulations on Toyota no country in Europe could give regional aid. Our offer to Toyota—the same one as was made in Derby—was devoid of regional assistance because of that. By Commission agreement, the motor industry is not subject to regional aid. General developments to improve the infrastructure in Swansea are on a considerable scale. I do not believe that the enormous potential investment that was announced 10 days ago would have been announced unless that were the case.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are much more likely to secure jobs and prosperity in Wales by encouraging private sector investment than by trying to recreate the museum of industrial archaeology which would have been maintained had the Labour party been in power these past 10 years? May I say to my right hon. Friend that his trumpet is in every respect far preferable to the Opposition's tin whistle?
    Mr. Walker: Enormous diversification is taking place, for example the enormous growth in financial services in Swansea, Cardiff and elsewhere, and the great diversity in new manufacturing. The fall in unemployment in the past two years has been on a scale which will produce a Wales which enjoys full employment in a diversified, free enterprise economy for the first time.
    Hon. Members: When?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise that the decision in 1979 by the Government, of whom he was a member, to remove special development area status from south-west Wales has had a damaging effect? We needed that status and assistance to compensate us for being further from the markets. If he is genuinely interested in regional development will he try to get it restored?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman, who has understandably raised his considerable anxiety at the closure of the Austin-Rover plant, will be pleased with the developments that have taken place since as a result of our flexible methods of assistance through the Welsh Development Agency. The saving of a considerable number of jobs and a whole range of other investments are taking place in his constituency.

    Aluminium (Water Supplies)
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a detailed record of the aluminium levels in domestic water supplied in mid and south Glamorgan by the Welsh water authority in 1988–89.
    Mr. Grist: This is a matter for the Welsh water authority and the information is not held by my Department.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that a great many of my constituents are extremely worried about the high levels of aluminium being recorded in domestic water supplies from Welsh Water? Will he agree that the people of Wales pay a high enough price for water without having to worry about ill health? If he agrees, will he have a word with his noble Friend Lord Crickhowell about putting matters right?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and his constituents can at least be comforted by the fact that the Welsh water authority's programmes have improvements in hand which will remove the aluminium by 1992 at the latest. Although it has been concluded that there is a link between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium—I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point—it has not yet been proven and further studies are being undertaken. There is no absolute proof.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister explain why it is that when improvements are sought in the quality of water supply, the Welsh water authority says that money is limited for capital expenditure, yet when politics and its relationship with the Government demand, it is able to find £2 million, this year alone, for advertising its corporate existence? There never seems to be a shortage of money then.
    Mr. Grist: It is worth pointing out that the Welsh water authority has 35 remedial work schemes, which are estimated to cost £96·7 million, which makes the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned look small beer.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh water industry will be able to increase its capital expenditure once it is able to tap the private market for funds?
    Mr. Grist: Absolutely, and with a flexibility and capacity to think in the long term which a state enterprise does not have because it has to answer to the Exchequer's needs in running the total economy.

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain small schools in rural areas.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is for local education authorities to determine how to preserve and enhance the quality of education in rural areas. The Government have given help through education support grant to improve the quality and range of the curriculum provided in rural schools. The measures included in the Education Reform Act 1988 are intended to improve the quality of education in all schools, including small rural ones and my right hon. Friend will be monitoring the effects of its implementation.
    Mr. Jones: In view of his reply will the Minister ensure that the Fron school in my constituency remains open? If it does not, many very young children will be travelling up and down the A5, which, as he knows, is a dangerous and busy road. I know that this matter is the responsibility of Clwyd county council, but it needs the funds.
    Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the case of Froncyslyllte school, which has 16 pupils and five primary pupils. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it is a matter for Clwyd local education authority. No proposal is as yet before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: We all agree on the importance of small rural schools, particularly for social reasons. Does my hon. Friend share my satisfaction that Clwyd county council will now have to choose between having its cake and eating it?
    Mr. Roberts: I am not exactly sure of the implications of the fact that, as I understand it, the Labour party now has a majority of one on Clwyd county council. However, that position carries with it an obligation for Labour members to chair all the committees, which, hitherto, the Labour party has avoided doing.

    Health Authority Chairmen
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen of health authorities in Wales; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend and I met the Welsh health authorities' chairmen's committee on 30 November 1988. The main subjects discussed were the NHS review; resource allocations for 1989–90; manpower issues; and obstacles to efficient management. We are to meet it again on 15 May for a full discussion of the NHS review White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Michael: Does not the Minister consider the topic of 10-year hospital plans of sufficient importance to warrant a special meeting with individual chairmen? Now that he has had more than seven months to consider the South Glamorgan health authority's plan and the Vale of Glamorgan by-election is out of the way, will he reject the plan as it stands, and also the ill-judged closures in it?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman was one of two Members of Parliament who made representations about the South Glamorgan plan and we know where he stands. As he says, the plan is before the Department and I cannot comment on it, but we have taken careful note of the representations that he made.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give the House the figures for hospital waiting lists in 1979 and the latest available figures? Will he give an estimate of how much the figures have been massaged in the Government's favour by the removal of day cases and self-deferred cases during this Government's period in office? Will he remember the promise that he made two years ago that one year ago no person waiting for in-patient treatment in Wales would have to wait more than a month? The waiting list is appalling and has, if anything, become worse. When will he tell the health authority chairmen that the Government are going to carry out that promise?
    Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he will have to wait one more week until the latest statistics are published. However, the general point should be made that the more successful a service is, the bigger its waiting list seems to become, because more people are referred. It is clear that when a new service becomes available more and more people pile in on it and are referred to it by their general practitioners. Twenty years ago there was no waiting list for hip operations; now, an unprecedented number of people are having them.

    Dock Workers
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered dock workers there are in the ports of south Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: There are 587 dock workers registered in the five south Wales ports covered by the scheme.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that however few registered dock workers are left in the ports of south Wales, there will be even fewer if there is a dock strike in the next few weeks? Does he agree that, as a Bristol Member, I am the perfect disinterested party to ask this question, since if there is trouble in the south Wales ports it will inevitably redound to the benefit of Bristol?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree that there is really no reason for a strike, and if there is one, it can result only in a further loss of jobs. It would help us all—dockers and the House—if the Opposition declared their attitude to a strike unequivocally. Are they for a strike or against it?
    The ports in the scheme in Wales have suffered a reduction in the number of jobs over the years and a decline in trade, whereas the non-scheme port of Neath has experienced an increase of about 60 per cent. in the tonnage that passes through it.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Civil Procedures (Reform)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the White Paper on the reform of civil procedure and progress made to date by the working party on multi-party actions and legal aid and their effects upon work-related personal injury claims.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The civil justice review, to which the Government gave their response on 6 April 1989, proposes a radical reallocation of business between the High Court and the county court. In addition, the Legal Aid Board has been conducting a detailed study of the opportunity for, and funding of, multi-party actions. It is expected to publish its preliminary conclusions and to go out to general consultation in the very near future.
    Mr. Allen: Neither the White Paper nor the working group seems to address the difficult problem of personal injury claims. It is difficult to pursue such claims even when, as often happens, they are legitimate. Will the Minister consider extending the strict liability rule and examine the burden of proof so that legitimate claims can be pursued more effectively?
    The Solicitor-General: On the contrary, the civil justice review devotes a great deal of its attention to personal injury claims and brings forward some far-reaching proposals for speeding up justice in this area and for making it less expensive.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): About 3·3 million cases have been handled by the service since it began. The commitment and professionalism of the staff throughout this early period have impressed me greatly. Understaffing of lawyers in some areas has, from the outset, been a serious handicap. It has imposed heavy burdens on those in post. but staffing levels are now improving following last year's improvements in pay. Independent acknowledgement of growing strength in the performance of the new service has recently come from the chairman of the Magistrates Association, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police. This I believe to be well deserved, and it is most welcome.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the salary structure is now adequate to attract candidates of the right calibre?
    The Attorney-General: There has certainly been an improvement in recruiting following the increases in pay to which I have just referred. I have, of course, always to remember the need for a satisfactory career structure, and the fact that there is an overall shortage of lawyers nationwide.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that in the recent case concerning the Wapping police officers and those who have now been discharged by the
    550
    Bow street magistrates, the papers were delivered by the police complaints bureau in May and a decision on prosecution was not taken until December? Could that in part have been due to the fact that the inner London staffing of the Crown prosecution service is still lamentably low?
    The Attorney-General: All that it would be right for me to say about a detailed case, following a reply to an open question about the Crown prosecution service, is that in the instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, matters are more complex than may have been conveyed by press reports.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Bar Council's response to the Green Paper, particularly as it refers to the Crown prosecution service, has been most constructive? Will he confirm that the cost to the Crown prosecution service of instructing solicitors is exactly double the cost to the service of instructing people from the independent Bar?
    The Attorney-General: It is certainly true that solicitors' overheads, being higher than those of barristers, have led to a substantial increase in the amount that is paid to solicitors who act as agents for the Crown prosecution service. I am glad to endorse what my hon. and learned Friend says about the quality of the Bar's response to the Green Paper.
    Mr. Nellist: Given the increasing number of homeless young people prosecuted in London under the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the fact that the Crown prosecution service appears to prosecute without question, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what purpose is being served? Why are the Crown prosecution service and the police apparently conducting special nightly sweeps of young people and putting them in court the next morning? In view of what has been said about the understaffing of the Crown prosecution service, is not this a wasteful and vindictive use of public resources?
    The Attorney-General: No case is prosecuted by the Crown prosecution service without question, to adopt the hon. Gentleman's phraseology. Nor is any sweep carried out by the service in London or anywhere else. The Crown prosecution service is bound by the guidelines established for the conduct of prosecutions, which have statutory authority. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject and I read the report today in The Guardian.
    Mr. Favell: While the Crown prosecution service has had teething problems, is not the service now dealing well with the new time limits for remand cases in the experimental areas set by the Home Secretary, and has not that released a large number of policemen back on to the beat?
    The Attorney-General: That is absolutely true. When the matter was brought forward by the Royal Commission, about 600 police officers were estimated to have been released from court work. I have no evidence to suggest that that is not the case and that the police are not back where the public want to see them—on the beat. A s for timings, it is an important change that cases must now reach the court within a certain time after committal, and that is being well met by the Crown prosecution service.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General take the House into his confidence about the state of morale of the CPS? Is not the pay of those in the Government legal service in a complete mess and are not the comparabilities providing difficulties between one part of the service and another? How many have joined the CPS this year, having resigned as magistrates' clerks, leading to substantial difficulties, including the cancellation of some courts?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to give detailed answers to all those questions, but I will look into the matters he raises and write to him about them. Those who serve the Crown prosecution service—after a wide programme of visits since the service began—are deeply committed to its work. Of course they would like to see recruiting up to full establishment, and there has never been any doubt that there is a shortfall; I have mentioned that today. I believe that pay is competitive now, but it must be kept carefully under review.

    Advice (Confidentiality)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to preserve the confidentiality of his advice to Ministers and others.
    The Attorney-General: The rule is so well known and observed that I find no such steps are necessary.
    Mr. Winnick: I notice that the Attorney-General smiles. Given the remarks of Sir Leon Brittan, is it not now clear that there would have been no leak of the letter which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote as Solicitor-General had not "express approval"—I am using the recent words of Sir Leon Brittan—been given by the Prime Minister's chief press secretary and political secretary? In view of the Attorney-General's reply to my main question, did not he feel very much let down by the way in which the No. 10 Downing street staff behaved? How can he be reassured tht such behaviour will not occur again?
    Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was sandbagged.
    The Attorney-General: It would need rather a large sandbag.
    Mr. Banks: Handbagged, then.
    The Attorney-General: It would need an even larger handbag.
    This is well ploughed ground and I have no intention of adding to its now very distant yield.

    Gloucester United Schools Charity
    Mr. French: To ask the Attorney-General if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his investigation of the affairs of the Gloucester United Schools charity.
    The Solicitor-General: The investigation of the affairs of the Gloucester United Schools charity, which has been conducted with the assistance of counsel for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for Gloucester county council, is well advanced. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to reach a conclusion in the fairly near future.
    Mr. French: I note my hon. and learned Friend's statement, but will he accept that it is now more than six months since the Treasury Solicitor first instituted his part of the inquiry and more than 15 years since the county council first failed to account correctly for its stewardship of the assets of the charity? Does he not feel that the beneficiaries have been patient for long enough?
    The Solicitor-General: A careful examination of a period of 15 years is well advanced after six months. That is not bad going. I hope to be able to assist my hon. Friend more fully in the fairly near future.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Crown Agents
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the Crown Agents to be privatised.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): As I informed the House on 14 December 1988, Her Majesty's Government have no immediate plans to privatise the Crown Agents.
    Mr. Field: Given the great success that the Crown Agents have in arranging training for overseas personnel in various skills such as public administration and legal work, and the fact that the Government have returned an enormous number of training functions to the private sector, is it not time that the Crown Agents were privatised so that the training of overseas students can be performed by the private sector and the functions even expanded?
    Mr. Patten: As I made clear last December, our legislative ambitions have to be reconciled with pressures on the legislative timetable. We have now completed the restructuring of the Crown Agents, to which I referred last December, and I have every confidence in their ability to discharge their functions effectively. I am delighted that they have won an extremely important contract from the Japanese aid programme to help with the procurement of Japanese aid in Africa.
    Mr. Gow: Knowing my hon. Friend's zeal for the privatisation programme, what injury would be done to those who are now receiving service from the Crown Agents if the Crown Agents were to be privatised?
    Mr. Patten: I am ready to concede straight away that my hon. Friend is an expert on my zeal. He is right to refer to my zeal in relation to the Government's privatisation programme. I can assure him that no damage would be done to the excellent work that is done by the Crown Agents were they to be privatised. However, privatisation needs legislation and legislation needs time.

    Rural Health Care, India
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he is making to the development of rural health care in India.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I recently approved an allocation of £20 million for phase II of the family welfare project in the state of Orissa. This project is directed towards the health care of mothers and children with special emphasis on poor tribal groups in rural areas. It complements our

    553
    village health care programme in Gujarat and long-standing support for national programmes on leprosy, malaria, blindness, cancer and nutrition.
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply, but will he assure the House that wherever possible health care programmes and direct attacks on poverty are integrated properly with education? Without education the other two factors are superfluous.
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We try to integrate our health programme in India and elsewhere with other programmes. We are trying to do that with our major education programme in Andrha Pradesh, for example, and to integrate also health care with our slum improvement programmes in Hyderabad, Visak, and elsewhere.

    Ethiopia (Somalian Refugees)
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid given by Her Majesty's Government to Somalian refugees in Ethiopia.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Since the outbreak of the civil conflict in Somalia last year, we have provided assistance totalling some £2·45 million for Somali refugees in Ethiopia. We provided a further £2·73 million in support of programmes run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the benefit both of Sudanese and Somali refugees in Ethiopia.
    Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the level of malnutrition that exists in many refugee camps in Ethiopia. In Hartisheik refugee camp, for example, more than 30 per cent. of children aged under five are defined as malnourished. Will he outline his plans to provide water and food to the camps before malnutrition and disease break out, rather than after?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Lady will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not think that the immediate problem is lack of resources in the camps in the Ogaden. When I visited those camps a few months ago, they had a considerable number of organisational problems that I took up with Mr. Hocké the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, when I returned to London. Considerable problems still exist there. Many have been brought to our attention by non-governmental organisations to whom I spoke a couple of weeks ago, and I shall be bringing them to Mr. Hocke's attention when he visits London later this month.
    Mr. Baldry: Given that there are Somalian refugees in Ethiopia, Ethiopian refugees in the Sudan, and Sudanese refugees elsewhere in the Horn of Africa, is not the root cause of so many difficulties the eternal strife and civil disturbances within those countries? When will the international community as a whole get a grip on the Horn of Africa and start helping those countries resolve some of their internal difficulties? Otherwise, there will be an endless saga of malnutrition and starvation.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that the major cause of distress in the Horn of Africa is civil conflict in the countries he mentioned. I fear that our ability to provide humanitarian relief to those in need is greater than our ability to make that humanitarian relief
    554
    unnecessary in the first place. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We make a good deal of effort ourselves—bilaterally, through the Community, and through other channels—to bring about peace in that region.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988, expressed as a per capita sum of the population of Nicaragua.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988 through the European Community, disaster relief and other channels was around £1·05 per capita.
    Mr. Clarke: The Minister did not mention bilateral aid. Will he bear in mind that the warmth of the welcome given by the people of Great Britain to President Daniel Ortega at the weekend suggests that we should support positive policies that will assist a country which has been savaged by a war not of its own making, which has lost 60,000 people, and where there is clearly a need for investment in education, health care, and the rest? Will the Minister take this great opportunity to open a new chapter in the relations between this country and Nicaragua?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's account of public joy is somewhat selective. It remains our policy to concentrate bilateral aid programmes on the poorest countries and on Commonwealth countries as much as possible. There are 60 countries in the world poorer than Nicaragua.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that Nicaragua's thoroughly reprehensible regime is far less deserving of aid than the excellent programme that he is running in Gujarat? Does he agree also that it would be better to concentrate aid in that particular area?
    Mr. Patten: I am conscious that countries such as Malawi, Bangladesh and Nepal have per capita GNPs about one fifth of Nicaragua's. As for what my hon. Friend said about the political situation in Nicaragua, I think that the whole House should be looking for action, not just words.
    Miss Lestor: No doubt the president has informed the Prime Minister of some of Nicaragua's problems, particularly those arising from the war and other difficulties. Can the Minister give an assurance that when he considers the needs of Nicaragua and its progress—especially on human rights, and education—he will ensure that no aid to Nicaragua or any other country, however poor it may be, will have any connection with the supply of arms by us?
    Mr. Patten: There is certainly no connection between defence sales and civil aid. That is made clear in the statute setting up my Department and in my programme, and it remains true, whatever recycled Guardian stories may say to the contrary.
    No doubt the president of Nicaragua made a number of interesting observations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning, and I should be surprised if my

    555
    right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not make a number of interesting observations to the president of Nicaragua.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is providing for Nigeria's economic reform programme.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We are making available to the Government of Nigeria a grant of $100 million for 1989 in support of its economic adjustment programme, which has the backing of the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Watts: Now that Nigeria is making welcome moves towards economic recovery and stability, would it not be appropriate for the Commonwealth Development Corporation to consider investment in Nigeria in support of the growth of the private sector?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is certainly right to refer to the progress made in Nigeria, and I know that the Government will be looking forward to discussing that
    556
    progress with President Babangida, who is to visit London this week. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to refer to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is indeed exploring the possibility of working in Nigeria and has already visited that country for some initial discussions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (S.R.(N.I.), 1989, No. 103) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Social Security (Contribution) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (S.R.(N.I.), 1989, No. 104) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Dock Work Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House, on or before that day.
Report and Third Reading
2.—

(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 80 may he varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—

(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—

(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

558

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—

(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub- paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—

(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the

559
House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Reccommittal
12.—

(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, reccommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The House will be familiar with the simple aim of the Dock Work Bill—to bring the national dock labour scheme to an end quickly, but in an orderly fashion and with continued special provision for dock workers' severance. There are many arguments in favour of abolishing the scheme—including the desirability of ending restrictive practices and reducing the burden that they impose on the taxpayer—but the most potent, in my view, is that the scheme will ensure a better future for the ports industry in this country, and a better future for those working within the industry.
I recognise, of course, that the Labour party does not agree with that view, and that even if I possessed the persuasive powers of Socrates I should probably still not succeed in diverting its members from their chosen path. The merits of the measure, however, are not the central issue in this debate. We are concerned this afternoon with whether or not to establish a timetable for the consideration of the Bill in Committee and when it returns to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Leader of the House answer a question to which I have been trying to find an answer ever since the White Paper was published? All parliamentary questions and all correspondence with the Secretary of State for Employment made it clear that the Government had no plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme in this Parliament. Why have they suddenly changed their mind?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that statement is correct. I remember answering many questions from this Dispatch Box, and I have no doubt that I consulted my right hon. Friend before we said that we had no plans "at present" to abolish the scheme. We then made a statement and proceeded from that date. I do not think that we completely ruled out such action at any time. The Bill was brought in in a perfectly proper fashion.
The arguments for a sensible timetable are compelling. The Labour party is on record as being committed to resisting the Bill by all means at its disposal. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said so on Second Reading, and his hon. Friends have said as much in Committee. We do not have to look far to see what those means will be. What action they are or are not taking outside Parliament is not a matter for this motion, but inside Parliament the Official Opposition's hand was revealed during the first sitting of the Committee, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said:
"It may sound naughty and public opinion may be a little shocked, but all we can do is delay the legislation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 April 1989; c. 24.]
The hon. Gentleman has certainly commenced his attempt to do so. During one of his two-hour speeches, I noticed that he was brought to order no fewer than 10 times by the Chairman as he sought to widen the debate to include the reasons why he had not turned up to a previous sitting, the education of members of the Committee, his inability to spell the word "chasuble", television crews' visits to Rotterdam, dock workers' dinners, and component assembly work. He spoke about almost everything except the amendments in question.
It is as well for the hon. Member that he obeyed, for a few seconds at least, the Chairman's injunction to
"return to the amendments …— or else."
His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) did not do quite so well. He was brought to order by the Chair for tedious repetition a mere nine times in one of his speeches. The philosophy behind these tactics was expressed in typically disarming fashion by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. He said,
"We are saying, 'Hang on a minute, mate. Don't rush it."
and
"We shall be in power shortly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 137–150.]
My colleagues and I on this side of the House are unwilling to wait so long to make progress with the Bill. I think that the best way forward to enable the Bill to be discussed in a sensible and balanced manner is thus to pass a timetable motion at this stage of the Committee proceedings. The Committee has now sat for 29 hours. My motion today would allow it to sit for at least another 30. For what the Opposition have repeatedly referred to as a one-clause Bill, that is a very generous amount of time. In addition, there will be a full day until midnight for the remaining stages.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is there any precedent for the imposition of the guillotine after 29 hours, except for the consideration of Bills by a Committee of the whole House?
Mr. Wakeham: There were certainly guillotines immediately after Second Readings of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. They were introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can argue his case later. The right

561
hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has said on a number of occasions in this House that there is always a first time for everything.
Mr. Meacher: And that is now.
Mr. Wakeham: This is a one-clause Bill. The timetable motion will allow plenty of time to debate it.
In the debate last week on the timetable motion for the Self-Governing Schools etc., (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) accused me of celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French revolution by dressing up as Madame Defarge and guillotining everything in sight. However, he has an inaccurate sense of historical analogy. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know that the relevant anniversary is the 150th birthday of Bradshaw's railway timetable, first published in 1839. It is this difference between the guillotine and the timetable which the Opposition do not or pretend not to understand.
The guillotine, as operated by their right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent during his version of the Terror, was designed to cut short debate in its prime. My timetable motions, introduced for the most part at an earlier stage, aim to ensure satisfactory scrutiny of the whole Bill. In deciding whether to move such motions, I have in mind the views of the Procedure Committee report in the last Parliament: that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on procedure last November, I said that, while I preferred to proceed on the basis of agreement wherever possible, and this in the majority of cases, I shared the desire of the Committee to move towards timetable motions, where they are necessary, at a time which allows for properly apportioned consideration.
In the timetable motion debate the other night, I was glad to receive support for this concept from the Social and Liberal Democratic party, in a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). My approach, therefore, is based on a considered timetable for, rather than guillotining of, debate: George Bradshaw rather than Madame Defarge.
The Dock Work Bill is undoubtedly controversial, and I regret that this controversy makes it difficult to reach informal agreement with the Opposition on the Bill's progress. Judging by the reports of the Committee stage that I have read, the Opposition have not exactly been short of time in which to make their points, and, indeed, have been spinning things out for as long as possible.
I hope that the motion that I am moving this afternoon will, by establishing a definite though distant time for debate to finish, concentrate minds and ensure proper scrutiny of this worthwhile and beneficial measure. I commend the motion to the House.
3.40 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not want to get into lengthy disputes with the Leader of the House about historical analogies, but it might be worth putting on record the fact that we shall not be able to celebrate the anniversary of the guillotine for another three years, because I believe that it came into operation in 1792. If everyone were given their credit, the guillotine would not be so called because, using an anachronistic method of putting things out to tender, after M. Guillotine had
562
proposed the idea, the revolutionary French put it out to tender and the guillotine was built by a German called Schmidt. Perhaps we should be discussing a Schmidt motion today, but I shall not do that, because it will confuse those who do not understand.
This is the 11th guillotine motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House since he was replaced as Government Chief Whip and given the job of upholding the rights and privileges of the House. Each time that he speaks on guillotine motions he gives different justifications, which boil down to a restatement of Wakeham's law —"When debate becomes embarrassing to the Government, I use our majority of 100 to stifle it." That is what he intends to do with this Bill.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: Certainly not at the moment.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Give way.
Mr. Dobson: I said that I will not give way at the moment. I will do so in a minute or two.
The rush to curtail debate on the Dock Work Bill is all of a piece with its sudden and unheralded appearance on the parliamentary agenda. In January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that she did not propose to abolish the dock labour scheme. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government had
"no plans to change or abolish it."—[Official Report, 14 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 276.]
On 20 March, when pressed to abolish the scheme by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), the Secretary of State referred him to the Prime Minister's answer in January.
Out of the blue, on 6 April the Secretary of State announced that the dock labour scheme was to be abolished. In an attempt to justify this peculiar timing, he talked of
"an emerging consensus … that the scheme should go."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 345.]
It was a strange emerging consensus, because unless the Secretary of State was lying on 20 March—I am sure that he was not—until that date the consensus appeared to exclude him and the Prime Minister. Few things in nature have a life cycle as short as this rather peculiar emerging consensus. The only example of which I can think is the emergence of a blowfly from a decaying carcase, which takes from two to three weeks depending on how warm things are getting, which is significant in itself.
Everyone knows that the Bill was introduced in the hope that it would provoke a strike, which the Government believed would make the Labour party unpopular and, at the same time, make it possible for the Government to blame someone else for the worsening trade figures. That is why it was rushed forward. If the Secretary of State wishes to dispute what I am saying, I challenge him to make public every document and record of discussions between Ministers, civil servants, port employers and shippers over the past six months. If he fails to do so, it will be because he knows that the publication of that evidence will incriminate him.
Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps my hon. Friend should also ask that the menus of the lunches between the port employers and Conservative Members be

563
placed on record. They were large and expensive lunches. On this occasion, the port employers must have felt that they had invested their money most wisely.
Mr. Dobson: It seems quite possible that they made what they considered to be a wise investment, although there are other investments that would be wiser.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's arguments about a dock strike, which were also put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in Committee. Can he explain to the House why he believes that a national dock strike, which would lead to imports being held up until the end of the strike and then flooding in, but which would, at the same time, damage our long-term export potential, would help the balance of payments? How can he believe that to be good economics? Perhaps this is the economics of the Socialist madhouse, but it is not the economics of the real world.
Mr. Dobson: Nothing the dockers do could do as much harm to Britain's balance of trade and balance of payments as the combined efforts of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. However, any interruption through industrial action would mean that the Government would be able to cast further doubts—I say "further doubts" deliberately—on the accuracy of the trade figures, which the Government are already calling into question now that they have become an embarrassment.
The announcement was geared to the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. Barry, the biggest town in the constituency, is a scheme port and from the word go, the Tories made every effort to turn the dock labour scheme into an issue on the door-step. The Tory candidate tried repeatedly to breathe life into this artificial issue. If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should read the Western Mail for 8 April, which said that the issue had enabled the Tory candidate to bring an end to the phoney way and start the campaign. At early Labour press conferences, each newly arrived Tory newspaper reporter could be relied on to raise the issue. But look what happened: the people of the Vale saw through the Tory contrivance, and the swing to Labour was the biggest since even before the dock labour scheme was introduced, which was a long time ago.
The reasons the Government give for abolishing the scheme do not bear close scrutiny, which is why they want to curtail the debate. They assert that some scheme ports have lost passengers and cargo. Some have, but that has little or nothing to do with the dock labour scheme. Most of the difference results from technological changes, shifting patterns of trade and the introduction of bulk carriers and containerisation. There are other reasons apart from technological changes in the docks. Most of the passengers who once sailed in and out of Liverpool and Southampton now fly in and out of Heathrow and Gatwick. Some goods that used to go by sea are now air freighted. Who would have believed, 25 years ago, that the economics of flying would eventually have permitted the air freighting of such a common cargo as potatoes?
There has also been a shift in the direction of our trade towards Europe, so that ports in the south-east have tended to do well—whether new, non-scheme ports such as
564
Felixstowe, old, non-scheme ports such as Dover or previously small, old scheme ports such as Ipswich. The increase in traffic since 1982 in the non-scheme ports has been matched by that in the scheme ports. Major investment is planned or under way in such scheme ports as Immingham, Southampton, Bristol, King's Lynn, Goole, Hull, Ayr, Swansea, Newport and Tilbury. Most of the investment required has been made by opponents of the dock labour scheme who, unlike the Government, have not been taken in by their own propaganda. Their actions have cast doubt on their assertions that the scheme ports cannot compete with non-scheme ports.
The Government's arguments in the House have themselves been contradictory. The Secretary of State for Employment talked about the scheme providing "jobs for life". In the same speech he said:
"Jobs have gone … and long lines of workers have volunteered to leave the industry altogether."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 43–44.]
Both those statements cannot be right, and most people realise that the second assertion is much nearer the truth than the first.
What of the remaining scheme dockers—those whose main fear is a loss of reasonable job security and a return to casual working instead of regular guaranteed work? By its very nature, demand for dock work can fluctuate from day to day. The Government want the dock workers to bear the brunt of that fluctuation, and some of the Government's supporters think that dock workers should get paid only when they are loading or unloading ships. Why should dock workers be different from anyone else? Soldiers are not paid only when there is a war, or MPs only when they are voting. Parliamentary correspondents do not get paid only when they are sitting in the Press Gallery; if they did, many of them would have their money stopped at this moment. Industrial correspondents are paid even when there are no disputes and when their newspaper contains no stories of disputes.
Both the Government and the employers say that they do not intend to reintroduce casual working in the scheme ports. If the employers mean what they say, they should negotiate with the Transport and General Workers Union to reach a binding agreement not to introduce casual working. If the Government mean what they say, they should pass a law to guarantee just that. To provide statutory backing for regular working would make no difference if the port employers are telling the truth; such legislation would come into operation only if it turned out that the employers had been lying. The Secretary of State should show some confidence in the good faith of his friends, the port employers.
The port employers are, indeed, the good friends of the Tory party and, to be fair, the Tories have been good friends to the port employers. That is only in accordance with the Tory maxim that a friend who gives £100,000 to party funds is a friend indeed.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how friendly the Labour party is with the Transport and General Workers Union—the union that supports the dockers? How much has the TGWU given the Labour party to oppose the measure?
Mr. Dobson: As everybody knows, the TGWU gives substantial sums to sustain the Labour party. It is worth remembering that the union is there to represent the dockers, not to tell them what to do. We should remember

565
the basic democratic arrangements in the trade unions—different from the rather undemocratic arrangements surrounding some of the port employers. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which is part of P and 0 —the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise, who have still to be prosecuted—in effect bought planning permission from the Tory party for further development at Felixstowe. To get the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill through the House, the Prime Minister stayed up half the night and the Government sacrificed a whole day of Government business.
Mr. Don Dixon: They had a champagne party.
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) says, they had a champagne party to help sustain the weaker brethren through the long watches of the night. Similar Tory help has been given to Associated British Ports, to help it to promote some if its Bills. At the time, some of my colleagues asked whether there was no end to this dubious Government's dubious help for the port employers. The answer appears to be no. The Bill is unique; it quite reverses the usual role of an Employment Minister. Previous holders of the post have seen it as their job to promote good industrial relations and to keep disputes to a minimum, and have introduced measures which they believed, rightly or wrongly, would achieve that.
The Dock Work Bill is different. It is intended to do quite the reverse—to provoke an industrial dispute. If not, why was there no consultation? Take the proposed reform of the legal profession. In response to threatened industrial action, the judges got their consultation period extended. That happened after a long debate in the House of Lords, where they really do have jobs for life. In his discussions about the future of the National Health Service, the Secretary of State for Health has occasionally behaved as though he thought he was dealing with dockers rather than doctors but it seems that his recent personal and party experiences in Vale of Glamorgan have weakened his resolve.
Now it is only the scheme workers who are being treated like the loyal workers at GCHQ and told without warning that their rights are being taken away. This Bill has been introduced not in the interests of the country or even in the interests of the ports industry—it has certainly not been introduced in the interests of the port workers —but in what the Government wrongly believe will be the short-term interest of the Tory party. It is seen by it as a piece of news management, not something which affects the lives of dock workers and their families.
The timing of this guillotine was intended as another piece of news management, but it has gone wrong. Today was originally to have been devoted to a debate on the Finance Bill. That was changed. This guillotine debate was planned so that it would coincide with the tube strike which the Government believed would occur today, so, at one and the same time, industrial strife would have been the topic both in and out of Parliament. Alas for the Government, in Burns' immortal words
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley."
No doubt with unintended irony, London Regional Transport has upset the Government's timing of the debate by using the Government's own industrial relation laws to stop a tube strike starting today. Things are getting bad. Even Bernard Ingham appears to be losing his grip.
566
If Ministers and the Leader of the House challenge what I say, will the Leader of the House explain why this guillotine motion was suddenly brought forward and why it became more important than the Finance Bill, and the debate later this week on the future of the National Health Service? From experience, we have come to know that everything that now takes place in this House is geared to news management to maximise what the Government believe will be political benefits for the Tory party.
The Government should abandon this guillotine and withdraw the Bill. If they are really interested in the future of the ports industry, they should bring employers and employees together to work out a future for the docks industry that enables it to modernise and expand and, at the same time, meet the legitimate wishes of dock workers for secure and regular work. All hon. Members have relatively secure and regular work. We should not wish to reduce the working conditions of others who are worse off than ourselves, as a bit of party political spite and news management. That is why Opposition Members oppose the guillotine today.
3.57 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) criticised the Government because, in his view, they changed their mind about the abolition of the dock labour scheme. At the very moment at which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House, a meeting of his party's national executive was taking place. It is a matter of deep regret to you, Mr. Speaker, as it is to me that neither the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Fool.) nor the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is a member of the national executive. Their stabilising influence would have been much in demand.
The remarks that characterised the hon. Gentleman's speech—those about changing policy—could not have been made at a more opportune time. We are told that the Labour party's most important sovereign body—its national executive, no less—is examining every aspect of Labour party policy. Judging from some of the criticisms that have come from Left-wing members of the Labour party, it is certainly possible—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has just started his speech, but I hope that he will relate his remarks to the timetable motion.
Mr. Gow: I was saying that an accusation that was levelled at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was that the Government had changed their policy. That accusation can properly be levelled at my right hon. Friend—it is a fair allegation—but there is no sin in changing policy.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There has never been any doubt in the Government's mind or in their proposals that at some stage—they have said this in writing—they intended to tackle the national dock labour scheme. The deception in the change of policy is that they said that it would not be tackled this Parliament, but suddenly, with no more than 24 hours' notice, a White Paper and a Bill were produced.
Mr. Gow: I reject the charge of deception that has been levelled at the Treasury Bench. Although I agree that there

567
has been a change of policy, it lies ill on the lips of the shadow Leader of the House to rebuke us for changing our policy when today and tomorrow of all days the Labour party is engaged on what purports to be a change in its policy.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are different? My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said two years ago that it was his intention to review his policy, but the Government were saying that they had no plans to abolish the dock labour scheme precisely when they were feverishly working on the White Paper. The Labour party has been completely honest and open, whereas the Government have been completely dishonest.
Mr. Gow: There is certainly room for two views on the openness of the Labour party when conducting its policy review. We are told that the great documents that are under consideration today will not be published until next week. I do not want to stray too much into the policy of the Labour party—
Mr. McLoughlin rose—
Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way, because I should like to make a bit of progress.
There is another aspect to the charge that has been levelled at my right hon. Friend with which I wish to deal. Almost 30 years ago, I made a journey to Blackpool. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was also there. We both attended the Labour party conference that followed the then unprecedented third successive defeat of the right hon. Gentleman's party. He will remember as vividly as I do the speech made by Aneurin Bevan, who said, "You know, comrades, to change policies is not a confession of sin; otherwise the whole of history would be a series of confessions." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember those words.
I advise my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I welcome most warmly the change of policy or change of timing that led to the introduction of the Dock Work Bill. I do not wish to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for having decided to introduce that measure at this time. If I have any criticism of my right hon. Friends, it is that they did not introduce the Bill earlier. The Government having made the courageous and correct decision to introduce the Bill, and my having studied what happened in Committee, having read the speeches of some Opposition Members and having been reminded of the 29 hours that have passed, it is perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend's timetable motion would have been justified, even had he introduced it earlier. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, who has expounded the principles upon which the introduction of a timetable motion should rest, is entirely justified in what he has done.
I go further. I believe that there is a case for such actions when it becomes clear—as it frequently does, even before we embark on the Committee stage of a Bill—that there will be deep controversy and deep hostility. Had I been in the shoes of the hon. Member of Holborn and St. Pancras —it is difficult to put myself into the mind of a Socialist, but I shall try—had I been a member of the Opposition
568
and had I been strongly opposed to the Bill, of course I should have deployed precisely the tactics that have been employed by the Labour party in Committee. Nobody is rebuking Opposition Members for doing that. All we are saying is that the Government have a responsibility to secure the passage of their legislation. While ensuring a reasonable opportunity for debate and in relation to the length of the Bill, this timetable motion is most generous.
Therefore, that which we are being asked to do this afternoon is entirely reasonable. I hope that the Bill, which has been too long delayed, will reach the statute book in the minimum time.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not necessarily the number of clauses in the Bill that matters, but the effect that one clause will have on the entire industry? Therefore, his argument that it requires only a brief period of discussion does not face up to the reality that those eight clauses will overturn completely the practices in one of this country's key industries.
Mr. Gow: I do not under-estimate for one moment the importance and significance of the Bill or the far-reaching consequences that it will have for our docks and for our dockers. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that the situation that will apply in our docks after the Bill has reached the statute book will be greatly superior to that which we have endured for so long to the great disadvantage of our country and of those who work under the present scheme.
I reject the accusations of the shadow Leader of the House. I believe that the motion is entirely justified. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book.
4.5 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others have said, it is inevitable that Ministers and others will change their minds about particular forms of legislation that have been before the House. Nobody would advance the idea that such changes should be denounced just because they are changes. That would be utterly absurd on any day of the week, let alone on a day when my party may be discussing policies elsewhere.
However, it is a matter of great importance to the House that, when changes are made—especially dealing with previous agreements that may have been made with great sections of the community—those changes should be carried through in a way which at least to some degree conforms with the House's conventions, which have been established to protect people's good faith and previous agreements.
I have a sort of double interest in the dock labour scheme and what the Leader of the House has proposed. I am interested because I recall what happened both when I was Leader of the House and when the dock labour scheme was discussed. It is bad faith for the Government to do what they are proposing, partly for the reasons that have been elaborated by my hon. Friends, which I will reiterate, and partly because of what happened some years ago.
Between 1970 and 1979, both under the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and under the Labour Government, there were many discussions between dockers' leaders and employers

569
and people engaged in the dock industry, after which it was agreed to continue the dock labour scheme, partly because of what occurred just after the war—casual employment and all the horrors associated with that—and because later we wished to establish the scheme on a more far-reaching basis. That was why we introduced the Dock Work Regulation Bill in 1976 on which there was a guillotine motion.
However, the Leader of the House and, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State for Employment appear to forget the agreements that were made between dockers' leaders, the trade unions—chiefly the Transport and General Workers Union, although it was not the sole union dealing with the docks—and the dock employers. There was an agreement between Lord Aldington and Jack Jones, which was known as the Jones-Aldington agreement. It was the basis on which they provided for the future of the industry for a number of years ahead.
As often happens in properly conducted industrial affairs, concessions were made on both sides, and agreement was reached between the representative of the employers, Lord Aldington, and Jack Jones, who represented the Transport and General Workers Union. They came to a bargain, but the Government have torn it up.
I am sure that Lord Aldington would never have been a party to such a procedure as this. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government have ever asked him or those who speak for him on these matters what he thinks about it. An agreement was reached between the employers, represented by Lord Aldington, and the unions, represented by Jack Jones. If, for whatever reasons, it is to be departed from, the Government should say, "Let us negotiate. Let us see what we agreed before and how we may change it." The Department of Employment should have followed that procedure, whatever Lord Aldington had to say. That is why it is so disgraceful for the Department to proceed in this way without any offer of negotiations.
Time and again when the Bill was discussed the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put the Government on the spot when he said, "Won't you agree to negotiations? Why have you rejected them? Why not have negotiations now? There is still a chance." Every offer and every suggestion of a way to settle the matter by negotiation rather than by dispute was mooted by my hon. Friend in a most admirable speech for the Opposition.
If peace breaks down, the guilt will rest directly on the Government Front Bench. The chief guilt lies with the Secretary of State for Employment, but now it must be shared by the Leader of the House, who is a party to this method of deceiving the House of Commons. This is a deceit. Not many weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and I were present when the matter was discussed. The Government gave not the slightest sign that they would change their mind and depart from the agreement. In a sense they accepted our arguments and rejected those on the Order Paper tabled by Tory Members. Again, that does not bind the Government for ever, but if they wished to be honest in changing the position they should have talked to the unions, the dockers and the House of Commons about it. Instead, they did the whole manoeuvre behind everybody's backs.
That is why I say that the Leader of the House has behaved disgracefully. He could have stopped this. He
570
could have said, "All right, first let's see if we can negotiate with those with whom we negotiated previously. Let us see whether the unions consider the circumstances to be a s much changed as the employers do."
The Government have torn up an agreement which was reached despite great difficulties in the docks. They have torn it up unilaterally. How can they think that they can ever say convincingly to workers, "You must stand by your agreements. You must not break any agreement," when they have broken up most brazenly the whole agreement between employers, the Government and dock workers?
The other day we had exchanges about how the Government would operate these guillotine motions. The Leader of the House has come near to telling us that he favours a permanent system of timetable motions. We all know that that has been debated frequently in the House and that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure favours the proposal, but the House has always rejected it, and rightly so.
Even when I was in government and wanted to use timetable motions—I was forced to use them in certain circumstances, to maintain any sort of rights for the Government—I was opposed to having a system of gullotine motions settled in advance, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is now moving towards. The Leader of the House is doing so surreptitiously. He did not have the nerve to tell the country and the House about the exact procedure for dealing with the dock labour scheme and, in the same way, he has not told us exactly what he intends to do about this procedure. He seems to favour a settled system of timetable motions, and he is moving pretty fast towards it. He has introduced more guillotine motions than any other Leader of the House. That is all the more indefensible for a Leader of the House whose Government have such a huge majority. Almost all the measures would have been passed through the House quite easily without being guillotined.
This Bill may have taken a bit longer, but, with the Government's huge majority, it would still have been passed. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not have forfeited the measure. It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he favours a full timetable system before Bills are introduced. I oppose that, as should all Opposition parties and Governments with any sense about Parliament's future.
Such automatic and wide-ranging timetable motions play straight into the hands of the Government. They give the Government every power to complete the business, whatever the opposition from whatever quarter, and however deceitfully the Government have operated, even if they have gone behind the backs of the House, as they have with the dock labour scheme. The Government know that the legislation will go through. I hope that the House of Commons will always reject regular timetable motions which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards, even if he has not yet had the nerve to put it forward as a general proposition.
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. However, he is not being in any way fair. I made it abundantly clear that I did not agree with the report of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended the automatic timetabling of public Bills, and I got into a fair amount of trouble for doing so. I have resisted following that recommendation. I have brought in

571
timetabling earlier than in the past, although not by an enormous number of hours, in order to give better consideraton to the legislation. It is better for the House to work as closely as possible with agreement on both sides. A strong body of opinion in the House wants automatic timetabling of Bills. However, I do not agree with that, for the reasons described by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
Mr. Foot: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Anybody who was listening to him a few minutes ago would have drawn a different conclusion. He was near to applauding the Liberals' most ill-advised proposal that timetabling should be done on a regular basis. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had a conversion on this heavily trafficked road to Damascus and that we have plucked him back to righteousness on that crowded thoroughfare, although I do not know how long he will stay there.
The right hon. Gentleman and I had a slight difference of opinion one evening last week. I quoted to him the extraordinary statement about guillotine motions made by Lord Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was being interviewed by Mr. Brian Walden and, as I said, I was not sure who was interviewing whom. Brian Walden laid it on thick about the wretched, shoddy, fifth-rate legislation that was being passed through the House of Lords and the House of Commons with no proper preparation. No hon. Member would doubt the truth of his allegations about the quality of the Government's legislation. However, to my surprise—because he is a genial fellow—Lord Whitelaw said that I was responsible for this position.
When I come to my final day I shall be perfectly prepared to answer for quite a number of parliamentary sins and I know them better than any other hon. Member. However, I shall not be made answerable for the shady and shoddy legislation which the right hon. Gentleman shovels through the House in the most disreputable manner. This is another example of it. The legislation being forced through the House is deteriorating rapidly.
I do not blame the draftsmen; I know what pressures are put on them. Bad legislation was pushed through last year—the poll tax, and so on—and at the fag end of the autumn the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce another half dozen guillotine motions to get the stuff through by the final day. Now, it is happening again.
It is even worse in this Session. All who sat through the two debates on the official secrets Bill know what a shoddy piece of legislation it is. Yet the Government hardly permitted a single amendment of substance to the measure, in this or the other place. The right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have an even bigger and more irresponsible majority in the House of Lords than they can manipulate here; that is becoming a dangerous thing for British democracy.
I do not believe that pleas from me or others will change the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The House now has no proper access to the Cabinet. The first business of the Cabinet should involve the Leader of the House telling the Prime Minister and reporting faithfully to the elective dictatorship what has occurred in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done that job properly in recent weeks and months, he would have had to report that the Government might have won a few votes but had hardly
572
ever won a debate. I challenge anyone to deny that what I am saying was true of the official secrets debate and of the last measures on which the right hon. Gentleman introduced a guillotine. He left it a bit late last time—we still had quite a good debate. He will not run that risk again. This time the chopper comes down even more quickly.
It is even more evil when the guillotine is applied to a measure that is of importance not only to the way in which we conduct our affairs here but to people of the country who are of great importance—the dockers. They have as many rights as others. The judges can tell the Government that they must have a chance to discuss proposals before they are shovelled through over their heads; the dockers have as much right to say that as the judges.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave mistake by introducing this measure, and he has done great injury to the House. In Cabinet on Thursday he should report that fact and advise the Government not to have another guillotine for a few weeks, because the British House of Commons will not stand for this for ever.
4.23 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the motion. It is important to move on and reach conclusions on this subject.
In Committee, it has been openly admitted several times, particularly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that Opposition Members intend to string out the proceedings as long as possible. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has diligently attended when he has made speeches—but that is about all. He has been quick to leave as soon as he finishes.
I was interested to hear the shadow Leader of the House say that things were going from bad to worse. He implied that today's business had been changed to try to coincide with the tube strike. Next he will accuse the Government of having been behind the Underground management's move in the courts to try to have the strike delayed—a strange accusation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is short of accusations to make, but he cannot defend the sort of tactics which his fellow hon. Members have deployed in Committee. They have tried to keep the Committee going for as long as possible without contributing to the debate. He said that he wanted the debate to be long. Nobody objects to lengthy debates, so long as they are genuine, but the Chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), has had to call hon. Members to order. For example, he said recently:
"I must admit that I am waiting with eager anticipation for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to refer to the amendments rather than explaining why he was not present during the previous sitting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 124.]
The Chairman has had to make that sort of statement on many occasions.
Labour Members have made the strange suggestion that we introduced this legislation to promote a strike. That is an odd claim, even by their standards, because we take pleasure in the knowledge that the number of strikes has fallen dramatically since we have made unions more accountable to their members for their actions. Strikes hurt the nation's economy and its reputation.
Mr. Loyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of strikes has been reduced, not for the reasons

573
that he suggests but because trade unions have had a steel ring put round them by legislation? That makes it virtually impossible for strike action to occur without endangering not just union finances but possibly the unions themselves. But workers continue to worry about what is happening to their industries as a result of measures being taken by the Government.
Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot see the hon. Gentleman's objection to trade unions having to ballot their members before strikes are called. He may be right to say that that impedes the activities of the unions, but it gives rights to trade unionists, those who must earn a living and who sometimes must accept action which is imposed on them and which they would prefer not to take. If we are charged with having returned trade unions to their members, I plead guilty with pleasure. Indeed, it could be said that trade union legislation has not gone far enough. After all, a strike lasting 12 months occurred against British Coal, when a number of us wanted to go to work and in the end succeeded in doing so.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows about mining—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] He represents part of Derbyshire and I believe he was a miner. He occupies one of the greatest Tory seats in the country, embodying, among other places, Chatsworth house. Is he not aware of the fundamental difference between dictatorship and democracy—the right to withdraw one's labour? It is now virtually impossible for workers to engage in that democratic right because the anti-trade union laws make it likely that unions will have their funds sequestrated.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously at total odds with all the trade unions reforms that we have introduced. Perhaps that is why the Labour party does not intend to repeal a number of them—[Interruption.]— according to those attending a great meeting that is taking place today at the home of the very trade union that has most to fear from the legislation that we are discussing.
What will be the effect of the Bill at the end of the day? We have been told of non-scheme ports—
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I shall complete the point that I am making before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We know that some workers in non-scheme ports are earning more than their counterparts in scheme ports, and it seems that the Opposition are determined that that should continue. They are not prepared to allow individuals to earn the money they want.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Transport house is still the headquarters of the Labour party? If so, he is some years out of date.
Mr. McLoughlin: Of course I am not suggesting that. I know that the Labour party's headquarters is at Walworth road. The meeting of today's national executive committee is taking place at Transport house. At least, that is what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he was about to attend the meeting to condemn everything that appears in the documents that are to be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He
574
thinks that every piece of trade union reform legislation that the Government have introduced should be repealed. That is not what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am being side-tracked. I am sure that you would soon call me back to order if I were to continue to stray, as it were.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am glad to have the opportunity to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech before he leaves the important issues of industrial relations in the docks and the Labour party's attitude to them. I understand that a meeting will take place today and tomorrow to fudge and mudge, to quote the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Has my hon. Friend seen the transcript of the television programme "On the Record"? I refer to the programme on 23 April entitled "Union Powers Under a Labour Government", during which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) promised that a Labour Government would bring back secondary picketing. What does my hon. Friend think the effect of that would be on labour relations?
Mr. McLoughlin: I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who leads for the Opposition in Committee, found himself in a dilemma. We learned after he made that statement that he w as not speaking for the Labour party officially. Instead, he was speaking in a personal capacity. My hon. Friends and I asked the hon. Gentleman in Committee whether he was speaking as an Opposition spokesman or in a personal capacity. I do not want to dwell on that issue any longer.
Shortly after it was announced that the Bill would be introduced to the House of Commons, I heard an interesting interview with the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the Jimmy Young programme. Jimmy Young asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Labour party felt so strongly about the Bill that it would reintroduce the dock labour scheme as a matter of urgency if there were another Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting answer. He said that Jimmy Young had asked a purely hypothetical question. I was not sure what was hypothetical—another Labour Government or the reintroduction of the dock labour scheme. The hon. Gentleman did not make that clear. Probably both events are hypothetical. The Labour party has been reluctant to declare that it feels so strongly about this measure—
Mr. Meacher: I have given no interview to any Jimmy Young show on this issue. What the hon. Gentleman says is pure rubbish.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman had better find out— [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement, I most definitely withdraw. I can only say that someone who gave the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West was interviewed on B13C Radio 2 about three or four weeks ago. I shall check the record, as I am sure will the hon. Gentleman. However, if he says that he gave no interview on the Jimmy Young show, I withdraw.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been reluctant to say that there would be circumstances in which the Labour party would be eager to reintroduce the dock labour scheme.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Jimmy Young programme often picks up news interviews and that it may well have used an interview from another part of the BBC? Was it not noticeable that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did not say that he disagreed with my hon. Friend's argument? He did not say that that was not what he was saying in other interviews. Perhaps it is merely that he did not say what my hon. Friend has suggested was said by him during a Jimmy Young programme.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Oldham, West was certainly very reluctant to say that a Labour Government would reintroduce the scheme. In Committee, he found it difficult even to justify the present scheme. Instead, the Opposition referred back to other documents, saying that they would like to talk about the scheme and expressing the view that it needs changes—but they have not made any concrete proposals.
However, in Committee we heard a number of comments such as that made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). The hon. Gentleman said:
"The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is a new Member and does not know the ways of Parliament. In these circumstances the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay. It is our only weapon, especially against a Government who so shamelessly misuse their powers."
When I challenged the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he replied:
"I shall underline the simple constitutional point for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who seems too obtuse to grasp it. The Opposition's only weapon is delay. That weapon will be deployed in proportion to the Government's intransigence in trying to force the Bill through. If they behave in this fashion the weapon of delay will be mobilised at length."—[Official Report, Standing Committe A, 2 May 1989; c. 216, 225.]
Any negotiations that may have taken place had no impact on the activities of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who was recently sacked from the Opposition Front Bench because he started work with a new television company. Incidentally, his attendance at Standing Committee A was a little questionable, but that is fair enough. He still made speeches of great length and took up the time of the Committee. He let the cat out of the bag, saying that the Opposition's only intention was to delay the Bill's progress through the Committee, come what may.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman, in quoting from the Official Report of Standing Committee A, attempts to suggest that it was only the Opposition who tried to introduce delay. If that is so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the remark made by the Chairman of that Committee, who is not a member of the Labour party, when he said:
"It must be about two hours since I heard anything relevant to the amendments."
Then, in response to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Chairman commented:
"My remarks applied to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the Minister."
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the misuse of time by the incompetent bunch of Ministers who serve on the Committee. It is their inability to answer questions properly that delayed the proceedings. That was highlighted by the Committee's Tory Chairman when he said:
576
"Thoughts have been expressed on both sides of the Committee, from the Treasury Bench and elsewhere, in interventions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 221.]
From that it is clear that ministeral team's incompetence has delayed the Bill.
Mr. McLoughlin: I agree that the Chairman of the Committee made that point. However, in fairness to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who wound up the debate, I point out that he was trying to respond to some of the spurious points made by Opposition Members. I should be happy to produce a full breakdown of the time taken by Opposition Members in that Committee. A lot of time wasting went on, but most of it came from those hon. Members who spoke the longest. A full breakdown of the time taken by the various speakers will give my right hon. and hon. Friends nothing to worry about, because their interventions were short and to the point. Many of the comments that have been quoted suggest that the Opposition have wasted a tremendous amount of time.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee. Can he cite one occasion on which any Conservative Back Benchers have made any contribution whatever?
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse us of delaying the Committee and making spurious points, and tell us off for not taking part. That, I think, sums up our case. The charge against Conservative Members this afternoon is that we have not taken part in the debates—that we have stood back to let the Opposition have their say if they want, and that after 29 hours we have still not managed to complete the stand part debate on clause 1.
For a number of reasons, I think it absolutely right for us to move forward to get the Bill on to the statute book —not least for the benefit of those employed under the dock labour scheme. I do not know whether Labour Members are going round saying, "We are fighting this tooth and nail in the House of Commons and we will try to stop it getting through," but that is unfair on those employed in the dock labour scheme: their uncertainty must be put to an end as quickly as possible. I think that all Conservative Members will give wholehearted support to the motion.
4.41 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: Much of the debate has proceeded on the basis that the Government have either changed their mind or not done so; that there is a reason for the Bill, or no reason for it. The interesting thing is, however, that from beginning to end no single Minister or Back Bencher has said why it was necessary to introduce the Bill at this time.
We know, of course, that there have been discussions about the dock labour scheme for many years. The Government sometimes seem to operate as though they were in a fog of ignorance: they keep saying that the scheme must be changed, but the truth is that the scheme as it is now is quite different from the scheme as it was first introduced. Several changes have been made, and each of those changes has been arrived at through discussion and sometimes argument. Both sides have recognised that nothing is immutable: when a scheme is in operation for

577
more than 40 years, some wrinkles may be expected to develop. Alterations in technology and in patterns of trade are expected to warrant change, which should be considered openly.
Our charge against the Government is that they have not considered the issue openly. Every time that it has been raised in this Session, they have said—certainly by implication, and in some instances specifically—that they have no plans to tackle the dock work labour scheme in the current Parliament. I defy anyone to produce a precedent—other than emergency war legislation, for instance—for the publication of a White Paper on one day and a Bill on the next, and the application of the guillotine within a month. There is neither precedent nor reason for such action.
There is an inconsistency that no one can understand in what the Government are saying, which is why the Bill must be debated fully. The Secretary of State has trumpeted that this grand design will produce 50,000 jobs; the strange thing is that the Bill provides for £25 million in redundancy pay, which means that between 1,400 and 2,500 people are to be made redundant. That is an odd way of creating jobs—sacking nearly one third of the labour force at the outset. It will not bear close examination.
The White Paper and the Minister's speech on Second Reading cited Aberdeen harbour as one of the reasons why it was essential that the Bill should be introduced with such haste. The record must be put straight. There have been no industrial relations problems in the port of Aberdeen of any kind that would justify the legislation. There has been a dispute in the fish market, which is part of Aberdeen docks, but the record has to be set straight. The difficulties were not due to the fish market porters. There have been many problems in the fishing industry. There have been quota changes; much less fish has been landed throughout the United Kingdom; there have been changes in the pattern of catches; the big trawlers no longer sail from Aberdeen, partly because of economic circumstances. The fish landing company therefore went bust; it could not pay its way. Only 12 months ago it under-estimated how much fish would be landed in Aberdeen. That had nothing to do with the scheme: it was purely circumstantial.
After the company virtually went into liquidation, the Aberdeen harbour board took up the burden of trying to obtain a new licence and establish a new company. I do not blame the harbour board for seeking to make changes in working practices and in the hours worked. However, it was more than reasonable that the fish market porters should say, "If you want to change our working conditions and if you want us to work longer, we expect some recompense for it." If their working conditions were to be changed, why should they not expect to receive some recompense for it?
These matters were still under discussion when the White Paper was published. It seems that in his haste the Secretary of State did not realise that there were difficulties at Aberdeen. As there have been no consultations and discussions, the establishment of a new fish landing company is in abeyance. Neither the Aberdeen harbour board nor the trade union knows how to continue the discussions. They do not know what is to happen. That is crazy.
The result of the Secretary of State's precipitate decision is that some fish market porters are being treated differently from others. Had I spoken in a debate when the White Paper was published, I might have commended the
578
Secretary of State for acceding to the request of Aberdeen Members of Parliament to meet the whole of the redundancy cost—£25,000—to compensate those who have to leave the industry as a result of restructuring. Even today I might also commend him for that. However, it is quite clear that he deliberately and provocatively deceived those people into taking £25,000 in severence pay, hoping that it would all be out of the way before the offer of £35,000 came on the scene.
Some of the fish market porters accepted the £25,000 redundancy payment, while others were allowed to take their names off the list. Those who applied for the £25,000 redundancy payment were told after the £35,000 announcement, "Hard luck, your name has already gone in. The Secretary of State, by not letting on what was happening, has cost you £10,000, but that's your hard luck." I do not understand how the Secretary of State, on his salary, could justify deliberately deceiving men into accepting a lower redundancy payment than the one which would be on offer a couple of days later. It was a disgraceful abuse of his parliamentary privilege.
The Secretary of State was not concerned about the loss of £10,000 by each man. All he was concerned about was getting as many people as possible to take the £25,000, which he said he would meet in full, so that—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening because, although he may think it is of no account, this is a very serious matter—by this deceitful method he could save his friends, the employers, £17,500 per man. That will be their share of the transitional payments. We have a right to be told when the Government made up their minds to introduce the Bill. On what day did they decide to introduce it? Did they realise the discrimination that they would create in Aberdeen by announcing, in the middle of discussions about restructuring the fish landing company, that they intended to introduce the Bill?
I have written to the Secretary of State about one case. I hope that he will at least be generous enough to say that some people were caught out. He will plead his innocence—I should be surprised if he pleaded his guilt—and say that it is unfortunate. I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider the issue of fish market porters who negotiated in good faith but accepted a lower redundancy payment than is currently available.
On Monday 3 April—again, the deception involved was enormous—negotiations between the Aberdeen harbour board and the trade union appeared to be moving smoothly. Fair concessions were being made and much hard bargaining was being done, but negotiations were moving. I am told by union representatives in Aberdeen that on Wednesday the board suddenly did not want to know. I have not consulted Aberdeen harbour board, which might hold a different view, but the men feel bitter and sour. They believe that the Government tipped off employers and that employers decided that all negotiations were off and prepared to ride out the storm because they knew that the Government were to scrap the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop pretending that the position at Aberdeen fish market had anything to do with the abolition of the scheme.
Aberdeen has had a magnificent investment and trade record over the years. A few years ago, the harbour was in such a rotting state that if its gates were not closed when the tide went out the harbour would collapse. In negotiations with employers, a trade union convenor used to say, "If you do not settle by 5 o'clock, I will wave my

579
hankie at the window and the dock gates will not be shut." Employers capitulated immediately, because they knew that the port would collapse.
I accept that Aberdeen has benefited from North sea oil and changing industrial conditions. The dock labour scheme has done nothing to hold back Aberdeen's development as a port. Investment in, and industrial relations at, the port have been very good, so the Minister cannot use that as a reason for this precipitate action or the guillotine.
No reason has been given for the lack of discussion between the Government, unions and employers. It is not as though there has not been sufficient time for those discussions to take place. When I was the Labour party's shadow transport spokesman, I had extensive discussions with trade unions and the National Association of Port Employers. We held long and detailed discussions about the way forward. The National Association of Port Employers always said that it was willing to negotiate and discuss matters, but again no explanation has been given for its change of mind. It was seized of the need for moderation and understood that change would occur only through discussion with unions. I warned it—and I warn it now—that if change were required and desirable, it would come about only if a proper package were put before unions and employers.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Surely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making—I appreciate that he is making it in good faith and for the highest reasons—is undermined by the fact that Mr. John Connolly, who is convenor of the docks section of the Transport and General Workers Union, made it abundantly clear that there was no negotiation on the dock labour scheme and that it was outside consideration altogether.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman displays his complete ignorance of industrial relations. Any initiative had to be taken by port employers; no package had been put before the unions. If employers had been asked, "Will you be prepared to negotiate at the end of the dock labour scheme?" they would not have said, "Yes, we will negotiate," without any idea of what was in mind. What utter nonsense. I do not know what business the hon. Gentleman is in, but if he signed a contract on the understanding that its conditions would be changed later and its details thrashed out, he would be bankrupt before very long.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Hughes: I should like to get on; many hon. Members wish to speak.
I told the National Association of Port Employers that it would have to be prepared to accept a national negotiation scheme. It said, "Yes, we understand that." I said, "You must realise that the national pension scheme will have to be maintained." It said, "Yes, we understand that." On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that nothing in the Bill would change the pension scheme, but that does not appear to be what employers think. They are saying, "These things will have to be discussed later." In every privatisation of a public company, be it railways, buses or airports, the Government have always frozen the existing pension scheme and said that new pension
580
arrangements must be negotiated with the new company. Under the Bill, there will be individual discussions port by port. I warn employers that workers will not wear that.
I warned the National Association of Port Employers that the national training scheme would have to be maintained. It said, "Yes, of course; that is what we want to happen." Part of the employers' case—I am surprised that Conservative Members have put the employers' case so badly—has been that the national dock labour scheme made it difficult to recruit and train new employees. That is nonsense, but it is what they said. If we take the Government at face value, it is clear that they have reneged again on this issue, because the White Paper makes it clear that these matters are best dealt with port by port.
The national medical scheme for dockers, which is one of the best of its kind in any industry, is to be broken up and decided port by port. I told the National Association of Port Employers that there would have to be some sort of national contract and some security of employment. After 10 years of Tory government, we know that no one in industry has security of employment in the sense that we should like, but there must be some security, guarantee or promise that there will be no return to casual labour. Employers have said, "We shall not return to casual labour," but the truth is that they are doing so. Port employers have said that they want a core labour force to meet the minimum throughput of a port. They want to take on additional labour as and when it is required. If that is not casual labour, I do not know what is. They must stop using language that is completely different from reality.
The Bill will scrap all the negotiations and agreements that have been built up over many years, which is why it must be properly discussed. It is unprecedented, because I do not know of any Bill that says that, in the interests of haste, a public body will be directed to sell its assets at below market value simply to get things through. That is astonishing and would be fraudulent in ordinary business—it is certainly fraudulent in thought.
The Government are not concerned about industrial relations. I do not know what will happen about the dockers' ballot, and it is not a matter in which I should intervene. I am a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and I should resent it if my colleagues advised me how to deal with industrial relations. Therefore, I shall not presume to advise the Transport and General Workers Union on a matter with which it must deal.
Whatever the outcome, the Secretary of State must be in no doubt that relationships in the ports industry will be soured for many years to come. There will be a running sore, port by port, as employers scramble to drive down conditions as hard as they possibly can. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I must confess a sense of disappointment and bitterness, to put it mildly, that the National Association of Port Employers allowed itself to be carried by hysteria whipped up by Conservative Back Benchers, or, to be more suspicious, connived in the whipping up of that hysteria. I am deeply disappointed that the many hours of negotiations I had with it, in which I accepted what was said in good faith, have been set aside, either because it was unwilling to stand up to the Government or for some other reason. People will draw their own conclusions.
I am proud that the voters of the Vale of Glamorgan took the decision they did. It marks a turning point in history. The witch's spell has been broken and the 10 years'

581
celebratory events which were supposed to happen last week turned out not to be a celebration. People's minds have been concentrated on events. They are beginning to understand that the Government, who have had an unprecedented opportunity, with their large majority and the large North sea oil revenues, to make this country one of the best industrially—
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not.
The Government have destroyed every opportunity and ordinary people's belief in Government. The time will soon come when they will rue the day.
5 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Debates on timetable motions have become a ritual in recent years. It is interesting to look back at the history of timetable motions to see how debates were prolonged in the 19th century and how Governments then tackled the problem of Opposition Members speaking for the sake of speaking without wishing legislation to progress. The record for speaking in the House is held by Henry Brougham who, on 7 February 1828, spoke for six hours on law reform. In more recent times, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have both spoken at great length. In the past week, we have had an example of a three-hour speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), following in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who spoke for three hours earlier this year.
Long speeches in the House, although rare, are not unknown and in Committee, the records are even longer. The record is held by the Gas Bill in 1948, when the debate lasted for 49 hours non-stop from 10.30 am 11 May 1948 to 12.8 pm on 12 May. A fairly recent example was the former hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Mr. Golding, who spoke for more than 11 hours on the British Telecommunications Bill in 1982.
The Government of 1887 brought in a guillotine, because they became frustrated by the fact that legislation on Irish matters was continually held up. The record for a sitting of the House was on an Irish matter in 1881, when the House sat for 41½ hours continuously on the Protection of Personal Property (Ireland) Bill. Although we have not had so long a sitting recently, I recall that in the past year, we sat for about 29 hours on a private Bill and lost the following day's business.
Debates on timetable motions tend to be rather ritualistic.
Mr. Richard Holt: Just to get the record correct, the longest speech recently was made by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in the debate on fluoridation. His speech was longer than that of Mr. Golding.
Mr. Bennett: I do not think that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton spoke for about four hours, whereas Mr. Golding spoke for 11 hours in Committee. Our hon. and learned Friend did not speak for as long as that in the Chamber.
Mr. Holt: I believe that it was 14 hours.
Mr. Bennett: I am referring to debates in the Chamber.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is going through history and saying that long speeches are rare occurrences. Does he intend to do a repeat performance—if so, he should perhaps warn the House first—or is he merely saying that such events happened in the past?
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is being a bit unfair. He spoke for 19 minutes, whereas I have been speaking for only three minutes. I was merely giving a little historical background to the debate, which would not come amiss.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, as always, managed to get the facts wrong, when he used them, and to get the arguments wrong, when he put any forward. He told us that the Government wanted a timetable motion today because a tube strike was due to take place, so the public would tie the two events together and rush to vote Conservative in the European elections on 15 June. He told us that the Government wanted a dock strike. He did not tell us how that could be the case, given that a national dock strike would damage the economy and would lead to imports being held up, only to flood in later. Our export potential would also be damaged.
Mr. Robert Hughes: There are reports in today's papers that the Government seek to defend the unprecedented balance of trade deficit while employers are stocking up ready for a dock strike.
Mr. Bennett: Any employer who employs dockers or who uses the ports would be foolish if he did not take account of the words of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the fact that the ballot is taking place now. That is merely to be far-sighted. It does riot mean that the Government wish to have a dock strike; it is the Opposition who want a dock strike. The Government have nothing to gain from a strike because it would have long-term adverse effects on our export potential.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on to talk about by-elections and, as usual, got his facts wrong. He said that the result in the Vale of Glamorgan last week was the best swing to the Labour party in more than 50 years, going back to the Liverpool, Toxteth by-election in 1935. The hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber now, has a short memory. If we look at the results in the past 20 years, at the Hayes and Harlington by-election in 1971, there was a 16·5 per cent. swing to Labour. In Southend, East in 1980, there was a 12·9 per cent. swing. In Brecon and Radnor, there was a 15 per cent. swing and Labour nearly won the seat, narrowly coming second to the Liberals. Only three years ago in Fulham, there was a swing of 10·9 per cent. It is not unexpected for a Government to do badly in mid-term by-elections and we know, as do the victors of Fulham and Ryedale by-elections in 1986, that winning a by-election is no long-term predictor of the next general election. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras could not get right a simple matter such as that.
Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will remember that, between 1976 and 1979, under the last Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was Leader of the House, introduced many guillotine motions. It is interesting to note that during that period, there were some spectacular Labour party losses, with

583
massive swings against them, especially in mining constituencies in the midlands, such as Ashfield, which was won by our hon. Friend the present Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right. When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he guillotined five Bills in a day. The Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill had guillotines introduced immediately after Second Reading. We need take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks to the House about liberty and freedom, because his record of introducing guillotines in one day is unmatched by any other hon. Member.
Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend care to remind the House of the swing in the Glasgow, Govan by-election?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There are several hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is short. I appeal for brief speeches and, even more, for hon. Members to keep to the subject on the Order Paper.
Mr. Bennett: I can resist the temptation to answer the question, although my hon. Friend knows that there was no swing to Labour in Glasgow, Govan.
Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill will have been pleased to hear our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House describe some of the agonies we suffered in Committee. We had to listen to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) speak for two hours, with 10 interruptions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who is not in the Chamber, was interrupted no fewer than nine times in just five minutes and was warned by the Chairman for tedious repetition.
As has been recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said:
"the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay."
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West challenged him by saying that he had let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Gentleman said:
"This Committee is rather like an educationally sub-normal class on constitutional law. The Opposition's only effective weapon is delay, which has to expand to counter the brutality of the Government's unacceptable tactics."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 216.]
We do not complain about the hon. Member for Great Grimsby speaking at great length. To have an audience of more than 10 after his second job, to which he has "bobbed off", to use a dockers' term, must be a great pleasure for him.
Opposition Members have asked why we need the Bill. I refer them to an editorial in The Times of 22 January 1988 about the
"Dark ages in the Docks".
It said:
"Some flavour of the rule book under which registered dockers work is provided by the injunction that dockwork shall exclude 'the loading of carts by horse drivers in the ports of Penzance, Hayle, Portreath, Porthleven and Newlyn' and references to work connected with 'sailing barges and other self-propelled vessels' in the port of Medway."
The leader in The Times concluded:
584
"A Government which believes that adaptability and hard work are the best guarantee of prosperity and employment should have the courage to allow working practices in the docks to be brought into the 1980s."
Mr. Loyden: They would, wouldn't they?
Mr. Bennett: Perhaps a quotation from Tribune would be more to the taste of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). An editorial of 21 April said:
"On so many major issues of economic and industrial policy where the Tories have made really radical proposals over the past decade, Labour has managed to appear to be caught on the hop. A good example is the docks. When did Labour last offer a creative thought about the docks industry that made any impact at all?"
In case Tribune is too Left-wing for the hon. Member for Garston, I refer him to a pamphlet issued by the Labour party—admittedly in 1966. The report of Labour's port transport study group said:
"The scheme has failed to bring full decasualisation any closer … The evidence we have heard has … been unanimous in questioning the value of the NDLB."
That was in 1966, so the Labour party recognised 23 years ago that there were things wrong with the scheme.
Mr. McLoughlin: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that although that document was produced 23 years ago, and although Labour Governments have been in power since, we still do not know what the Labour party would put in place of the national dock labour scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that, given 23 years and now a policy review, even the Labour party ought to be able to reach some sort of conclusion?
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has a good point. We await the outcome of the policy review discussions that are taking place today and tomorrow. It is interesting to note that an exit poll in Vale of Glamorgan last week showed that only eight of the 250 people interviewed voted Labour because of the credibility of Labour policies. I suggest that, after the review documents have been analysed and debated, no one will vote for the Labour party on the basis of its policies.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked why the Bill had been introduced without consultation and so quickly and why there had been no discussion with the employers. We have all the evidence that we need that the Transport and General Workers Union is not prepared to discuss the dock labour scheme. For years, the union has said that there can be no debate on the scheme and that it cannot be amended. When challenged in the national joint council's executive committee on 19 March 1986, Mr. John Connolly is reported as saying that
"he doubted … whether the employers wanted that kind of discussion, and suggested that they wished instead to talk about the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. He said that the trade union was not prepared to discuss the abolition of the Scheme."
We have many other quotes from Mr. Connolly. For example, on 12 November last year he said on Channel 4 that any attempt to amend or abolish the national dock scheme would be met with a national dock strike. How can the Government talk to people who will not even consider amending the scheme, let alone accept its abolition? The Opposition are wrong to say that the TGWU is willing to discuss amending the scheme.
In 1986, the director of the National Association of Port Employers wrote to Mr. John Connolly, at the

585
suggestion of the then Secretary of State, to propose that a meeting be held. Replying on 21 April 1986, Mr. Connolly said:
"In reply to your letter of 6 April 1986, I can advise you that, having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I can see no point in having joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal."
We have it in black and white, in correspondence, speeches and television programmes: in the eyes of the TGWU, the scheme must remain. It is not true that the TGWU wants discussion and debate. It is not interested in getting rid of the scheme. It is up to Parliament to legislate for the end of the scheme.
Mr. George Galloway: Given the hon. Gentleman's grandparentage, I doubt whether I am alone in finding the degree to which he seems to welcome this move to do down the dockers pretty unseemly. In his ire against the dockers, however, will he not find time to remember that Mr. Connolly and Mr. Todd visited the National Association of Port Employers last month? They offered to negotiate new arrangements for the dockers in the scheme ports on the basis that the workers' conditions would be no less favourable than they are now. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as an unjustifiable bottom line for a trade union?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman knows that that discussion took place merely so that the trade union could seek to protect itself from any legal proceedings that might result if a strike were called. The simple fact is that the TGWU is having a political dispute with the Government. The employers are not directly concerned with the merits of the dock labour scheme, because they are not in charge of it. It was set up by legislation and only the Government and Parliament can dispose of it. There is no dispute with the employers about the dock labour scheme. The TGWU is trying to persuade the courts, therefore, that the dispute is with the National Association of Port Employers. The TGWU cannot even get away with that, because dockers are employed by individual port employers and not by the National Association of Port Employers. The members of the trade union and Opposition Members in Committee are not interested in getting rid of the scheme; they merely want to replace it with another scheme that is equally restrictive and damaging to our export possibilities.
Mr. Tim Janman: At the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), the employers made it clear that, once the scheme has been abolished, they will be employing people who have been in the scheme on exactly the same basis and with exactly the same terms and conditions as their employees who have never been in the scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is perfectly justifiable and morally acceptable?
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the dockers should be treated differently in law from any other group of workers or why they should have the restrictive practices and protection that they have at present. With the increase in Britain's export potential and the strengthening of the economy, there is no doubt that plenty of jobs will be available in the docks in the coming years. We merely wish to remove this
586
ridiculous scheme, which is holding up the redevelopment of inner-city areas and clamping down on dock development.
It is interesting to examine the question asked by the Transport and General Workers Union of the registered dock workers this week. The ballot paper is headed:
"Trade dispute with your employer"—
that brings me back to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) —
"including all matters arising out of and in consequence of that dispute".
The question is:
"Are you prepared to take part in a strike?"
and the dock workers are asked to answer yes or no. The ballot paper does not tell the registered dock workers what the dispute is. This must be the first secret ballot in which the question itself has been kept secret. It is extraordinary that the trade union is not prepared to include in the ballot paper the nature of the dispute. It has done that because it knows that there is no trade dispute with the employers, that it is a dispute with the Government, who are introducing a Bill to get rid of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has a long record of making speeches about the dock work scheme and the strike. The hon. Gentleman challenged remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West about quotations from speeches that he may or may not have made on the radio, and I accept what he said about that. It turns out that it may have been the Leader of the Opposition who was speaking. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said on Radio Lancashire news on 10 April this year, in answer to the question whether there would be a dock strike:
"frankly we have no alternative but to support, if there were a strike."
The views of the hon. Member for Oldham, West are clearly on record. It is the Labour party that wants a strike, not the Government.
I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) notice that I would mention his comments earlier in the debate, although I understand that he has now gone to meet the President of Nicaragua. The hon. Member may have a good time when he is there. He talked about Tory Members having dinners with the port employers. That is very interesting, but I have a list of dinners that Labour Members have had with the port employers.
At the National Association of Port Employers reception at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 15 December last, the hon. Member for Garston was taking the entertainment of NAPE. The hon. Members for Great Grimsby, for Liverpool, West Derby, for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) were also invited. They accepted, but, unfortunately, did not turn up. Other hon. Members attended, but they did not sign the visitors' book. In June 1988, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North had lunch with the port employers. On 2 March, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was at the Mayfair hotel to discuss the dock labour scheme. On 7 March, the hon. Member for Oldham, West had a meeting at the House of Commons with the National Association of Port Employers about it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had two lunches with NAPE in July 1988 and in Jaunary 1989.
Opposition Members not only have lunch with the Transport and General Workers Union but are busy lunching off the National Association of Port Employers.

587
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should be careful when he talks about people who lunch, as though it were some way of getting into hock with employers, when Labour Members on the Committee appear to dine more frequently with port employers than Conservative Members might.
The real reason we are getting rid of the scheme is that it is totally indefensible. When one looks at the examples of ports where registered dock work schemes are in use, time and again, one finds that ghosting takes place. For those hon. Members who are not on the Dock Work Bill Committee, I should explain that ghosting occurs when a registered dock worker stands by while another man does the job and they both get paid for doing it, thus doubling the cost of the work. It is specially prevalent in the constituency of the hon. Member for Garston. There are plenty of examples. It takes place in Liverpool, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Bristol and Newport. Wherever one looks one sees examples of ghosting. It occurs on the Medway and in Hunterston.
There is a good example in Grangemouth, which shows why the Bill is necessary. The docks in Grangemouth have been fully automated and require no docker involvement. However, dockers in the port insisted that a ghost docker must be in attendance while unloading takes place. Recognising that there was absolutely no work for that docker to do during the operation, the men demanded that he be provided with a Portakabin fitted with a colour television and a microwave oven. That was so that he might "overcome boredom". The prospective employer did not enter into the contract, and lucrative business was lost to the port.
That sort of behaviour goes on in ports which are under the registered dock work scheme. Not only is ghosting taking place; there is also "bobbing". A registered dock employee signs on and "bobs off' to another job, perhaps running a pub or taxi driving.
Mr. Galloway: What about Tory Members?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman shouts about Tory Members not being present. I will tell the hon. Gentleman about Labour Members on the Committee and their voting records. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West had a 60 per cent. voting record in the House last year. He was 324th in the league. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) came 480th in the league, with a 51 per cent. record. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) had a 59·7 per cent. record, and he came 339th. Who came top of the league? Tory Members. I came 19th in that league. I do not take lectures from the hon. Member for Hillhead. He is the part-timer in the House when it comes to attending debates and taking part. We will look at his voting record, too, if he wishes.
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) does not take part in debates is that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) filibusters for so long that it prevents him from doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In the past 10 minutes, I have already appealed to the House for short speeches. There
588
are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served on the Committee and are seeking to speak. I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the part-time hon. Member for Hillhead, who spends most of his time bobbing around on trips abroad. He should not lecture us about the people who do the work in this House.
It is worth while to point out why the scheme must go. For years, the national dock labour scheme has ruined opportunities for expanding our ports in inner-city areas. If we examine the record of Felixstowe, which is outside the scheme, contrast it with Ipswich and look at dock labour schemes on both the east and west coasts and compare them with non-scheme ports, we will see the improvements in productivity and trade in non-scheme ports. In 1970, dock scheme ports accounted for 90 per cent. of non-fuel imports into and exports from this country. They now account for 70 per cent. Non-scheme ports are improving their productivity and the amount of trade that they take. They are taking on more workers, but, on their own, they cannot take the full burden of the national economic expansion that is taking place.
We need to make sure that scheme ports are able to operate without restrictive practices—without overmanning—and that they can operate in such a way that they can improve their facilities and compete with continental ports. With 1992 approaching and with the need to make management decisions today and not in 1992, it is right that we should abolish restrictive practices and ensure that our ports and docks have an opportunity to expand to meet the challenge of an expanding economy.
5.25 pm
Mr. Archie Kirkwood: If the House were looking for a good example of how to waste 25 minutes of parliamentary time discussing a guillotine motion, it could not find a better example than the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He talked about everything under the sun, such as who had lunch and who had dinner with the port employers. It is with some sadness that I tell him that nobody invited me to lunch or dinner. I am always in the market for a good meal and a good discussion.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Kirkwood: I will not give way. I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a good example of spirited irrelevance.
I have a rather questionable right to take part in the debate, and I do so only because my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is prohibited by adverse weather conditions from getting out of his constituency. He would have been in his place as Chief Whip of the Social and Liberal Democrats. His absence puts me in a good position. I am spared the worst excesses of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His speeches are always long and arduous, but I find them entertaining. That is a saving grace. The debate gives me the opportunity to look at the terms of the guillotine motion in an objective manner.
Although, as a party, my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to defend the continuation of the dock labour scheme, by no stretch of the imagination does it mean that

589
we are prepared to abandon dockers. Important matters must be resolved and guarantees must be secured before we would be prepared to allow a return to the casual system of dock labour. The Government must give some important guarantees in Committee.
Although, on balance, I favour the terms of the legislation, my hon. Friends and I cannot support the introduction of the guillotine at this time. There are two matters before the House. First, I refer to the use of guillotines in the first instance. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right: there is a worrying trend in the frequency with which the House resorts to guillotine motions. The hon. Gentleman said that the House had resorted to 11 guillotines in his time in the House. That is a serious matter. Of course I understand that Governments need to get legislation through. Of course I understand that, on previous occasions when Governments have survived by wafer-thin majorities, there are circumstances in which guillotines are necessary. Of course guillotines may have to be imposed when important constitutional questions are involved. But the Government have no impediment in terms of a lack of majority, nor are they troubled by any restraints on parliamentary time this year. As someone who is an objective observer and not a member of the Standing Committee, I advise the Leader of the House that I do not think that he made a case for bringing forward a guillotine after only 29 hours in Standing Committee.
It was admitted earlier that this is essentially a one-clause Bill and if it is, I do not see any danger in having a later guillotine. If the Government had come to the House much further into the Committee's proceedings, they would have found, at least on this Bench, a more willing acceptance of the need to resort to the guillotine. However, in our present position and looking at the special character of this legislation, which I fully understand is party politically contentious—that is obvious to anyone who considers the issue for longer than a second—why have the Government decided to timetable the Standing Committee so soon? We have not had an effective answer to that question and until we do, the House should consider rejecting the motion.
I go further, and say that there are special circumstances with this Bill which make the Government's position even more untenable than the purely constitutional case of the number of hours that the Standing Committee has been able to deliberate on the Bill in detail. The way in which the White Paper and the Bill were suddenly introduced out of the blue bears heavily with me when trying to decide how to vote on the timetable motion.
If one listens to what Conservative Back Benchers have said this afternoon, one realises that they are not interested in any legislative scrutiny. They have said that as there is no prospect of changing the Bill, we should introduce the law straight away, never mind any parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, that is the way in which the Government are operating more and more. Parliament has been swept aside time after time on contentious issues, despite the Government having a majority in excess of 100.
Special circumstances are involved because of the way in which the Bill was introduced and the transition from the Government saying that there was no need for reform, to the White Paper being introduced on one day, with the Bill on the next, and the guillotine being introduced just one month and 29 hours in Committee after the Bill was published. That is a scandalous timetable for any
590
Government, even for one with a wafer-thin majority, but especially so for one that is dealing with such a finely tested constitutional issue.
The Government have not proved their case. Indeed, from a political point of view, it is inept to bring forward a guillotine this early because it is bound to exacerbate the present delicate state of industrial relations. It will not make anybody's job any easier. It would have been perfectly proper and, indeed, statesmanlike for the Secretary of State for Employment to say, "We will run the Standing Committee slowly. We will take time and allow hon. Members of all parties to table new clauses at the end of our Committee proceedings." However, the Government are bringing forward a timetable motion just 29 hours into the Committee's deliberations. That is a scandalous abuse of procedure.
This is an important Bill and we are anxious to see removed from the statute book what we regard as continuing restrictive practices. However, we do not want to return to the bad old days of casual labour. We need some assurances from the Government and a Government strategy for the ports, not just a return to free markets. We need assurances that go far further than those that we have been able to get to date in the Standing Committee about the need for training and retraining. Above all, we need more time in the Standing Committee to cross-examine the Government, to scrutinise their programmes and to test their plans for the future of the docks industry, which is important to the future of this country.
5.33 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this guillotine debate and must declare an interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) because I, too, have lunched with the port employers.
The guillotine motion is important. Many Conservative members of the Committee have not taken part in the Committee. We have listened and have said nothing on occasions, and we have heard nothing to make us change our minds during the 29 hours that the Bill has been debated. After 29 hours, we have not got beyond clause I stand part because the Opposition—I acquit the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of this charge, because like us he has sat and listened and has not said a great deal—have attempted to replace the dock labour scheme, which the Bill clearly attempts to abolish, with a different scheme. In effect, it would be "son of the dock labour scheme". That idea has been put forward cleverly by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friends, who want to build a new scheme under an entirely different name. We have listened, we have seen that for what it is and we have voted against it time and time again. We have not accepted that any of the arguments have any credence.
Some Opposition Members have spoken at great length in Committee. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke for two and a half hours. Much of his speech was an attack on the Government and on Conservative Members, couched in abusive terms. Four of the Opposition members of the Committee are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. The view that I have formed—I am probably not alone in this on the Government side of the Committee—is that they are earning their sponsorship

591
money by fighting Ron Todd's war—the war of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union—in Committee. They have been dangling like puppets on a string and dancing to his tune.
I can quote the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who is not in his place, when he told us during one of his long interventions—
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is in the House.
Mr. Hind: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told us that he viewed the role of the Labour party in Parliament as that of the political arm of the trade union movement and said that that is how he acts. Like Nelson when he put the eyeglass to his blind eye and said, "I see no ships," that is the way in which the Labour party has continued the debate in Committee. Indeed, it could be said that the problem of the dock labour scheme is that, unfortunately, not enough ships are seen in dock labour scheme ports. That is why it was necessary to introduce the Dock Work Bill, which I commend to the House.
In Committee, the Opposition have totally failed to address the major issue that the Bill attacks. In the past, the dock labour scheme has clearly deterred investment because companies will not invest in ports covered by the scheme. That has deprived inner cities of investment in thousands of acres of derelict land in cities such as London, Glasgow and Liverpool, which is on the edge of my constituency. For that reason above all, it has been necessary to introduce the Bill. Employment in scheme ports has contracted, but that point was not addressed by the Opposition in Committee. Trade in scheme ports has declined and the number of registered dock workers has fallen.
In contrast, we have seen the growth in non-dock labour scheme ports that at one time did not exist. They have grown only because of the existence of the dock labour scheme. Non-scheme ports that handled little or no cargo in the 1940s, such as Felixstowe, have adapted, prospered and expanded; they show how modern, well-managed ports can use technology to secure prosperous and well-paid employment. I am afraid that that is in marked contrast to what has happened in dock labour scheme ports.
One point that Conservative Members have tried to address in Committee—the Opposition have totally failed to address this—is that the contract of employment in scheme ports must be the only contract of employment known to English and Scottish law that contains a criminal sanction if the employer employs somebody who is not a registered dock worker, or whatever the scheme implies. Such criminal sanctions are nonsense in this sort of society.
The second point not addressed by the Opposition is the question of jobs for life. In Committee, the Opposition tried to suggest that doctors, lawyers and other people in our society have jobs for life. Although those people can all be made redundant from their jobs, under the dock labour scheme, redundancies to reduce the work force are impossible. When the dock labour scheme is abolished,
592
dockers in scheme ports will find that their terms and conditions will be the same as those for the rest of the working population, which cannot be a bad thing.
It is important to note some of the abuses within the dock labour scheme—for example, ghosting and bobbing. There are examples in Garston and also in Liverpool, where three registered dock workers must be employed each day between Monday and Friday for the reception of scrap on to the quay prior to loading. Those men are ghosts. They play no part in the operation. If the ships are bigger, upwards of 16 ghosts can be employed there. They must he employed by the employers.
Recently in Liverpool, T. and J. Harrison and Bulk Cargo Handling Services were closed. The local employers, who already employed far more labour than they needed, refused the local board's request to take on workers who had been laid off. The unions on the board threatened an immediate local strike, with the possibility of a national strike, if the local employers did not reconsider their decision or if there was any move to place the men on the total unattached register.
Mr. Pat Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: I apologise, but I shall not give way.
Liverpool, like many other dock labour scheme ports, has been crucified by this ridiculous scheme. There was no possibility of any meaningful discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union about this scheme. The section convenor, Mr. Connolly, said that there would be no discussion about it. He was supported by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has been quoted in the Morning Star and many of the Left-wing journals as saying that, effectively, the Labour party will support the union, as one would naturally expect the Labour party to stand by unions should they find themselves in difficulty over the operation of the dock labour scheme. As recently as the end of March, he is quoted in the Lancashire News as saying that that is what will happen. That is what we expect.
We have no intention on this side of the House of forcing a strike. We do not want to force a strike. It is interesting to note that we have seen on the television a combination of Mr. Connolly and the hon. Member for Oldham, West sitting together discussing the matter. Is it not peculiar that there has been no strike during the period of the local government elections? Should we draw the conclusion that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that the Labour party is nothing more than the political wing of the trade union movement?
It is clear that, if dockers consider what we are trying to do, they will realise that there is no need for any strike and that the reason the Bill is going through as quickly as possible is that the Government are interested in protecting the national interest. We would be foolish to stand by like Caligula feasting while Rome burns. We on this side of the House and Conservative Members on the Committee have no intention of doing that. I regard the guillotine motion as essential. I hope that the entire House will join me in the Lobby to support it.
5.42 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on a number of occasions referred to Liverpool. I remind the House that those slogans, which are thrust about day by day by Conservative Members, are a thinly disguised way of hiding the real reasons for the Government wanting the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Ghosting and bobbing were practices that came about with the co-operation of the employers, because when ships were loading or discharging the employers demanded that the derricks were working and the hook was moving for the entire period for which that vessel was being loaded or discharged. The intense labour involved in loading and discharging vessels of cargoes, such as hides, beef and chemical cargoes, required men to take breaks from time to time. That system meant that the employer was maximising his labour to the absolute. The welting that went on in those days was necessary so that people could maintain the levels of production that the employer demanded.
It has been clear from the outset that the real reason for the Government wanting to abolish the national dock labour scheme—with the co-operation and collusion of employers who for the past 30 years have wanted to abolish it—is that they detest the trade union movement and the rights that workers have won through negotiations with the industries to which they belong. It is absurd for the party of privilege to refer to the dockers as privileged people. The Conservative party demands the retention of its power and privilege over the masses in this country; it has done so from the dawn of political history. Conservative Members should be the last to refer to dockers as privileged people and to raise that red or blue herring.
It is clear that the Bill is being railroaded through by the Government to remove as quickly as possible from the statute book all the present conditions in the dock industry. However, they have suggested nothing to put in their place.
I went on the Committee reluctantly. I believed that it was ritualistic to go on the Committee, because of the present Tory majority and its determination to abolish the scheme. No answers were given to questions raised by other members of the Committee. The Government now see fit to guillotine the Bill. One can argue that, in those circumstances, that Committee could be seen as a jury as appointed after the death sentence had been passed. The Secretary of State then hastily arranged for the execution by bringing in the guillotine.
Hon. Members talk of delay on clause 1, but clause 1 is in fact the Bill. The seven clauses that follow are consequential. Clause I abolishes the scheme. If clause 1 is the Bill, it is reasonable and proper that those Opposition Members who are opposing it should be given, first, the greatest opportunity to examine and probe the Government on the issues and, secondly, to discover what the Government intend to do about replacing the existing conditions as they apply to training, welfare, discipline and such other matters as are governed by the national dock labour scheme. So far, we have not been told.
Conservative Members have said that they are not prepared to respond to the suggestions of the Opposition on any matters. They have turned deaf ears to the forthright suggestions put to them, such as that a key
594
industry cannot be left in a void. The docks are a key industry, and it appears that the Government are dealing with them in a cavalier fashion. Both in peace and war, the industry has played a key part in the creation of wealth in Britain. Indeed, when the second world war started, the main concern of Winston Churchill and Ernie Bevin was what would happen to the docks. Because of the pre-war conditions, the docks were in turmoil and chaos, and that situation continued into the post-war period. The state had to intervene to ensure that the ports were secure and that there was an understanding of the agreements under which the men were working. They made a major contribution to the war effort, and that was understood at that time.
I wonder what would happen in the unhappy event of a similar situation arising in the not-too-distant future. Would the Government leave the docks in the position that they will be in after the abolition of the scheme? Of course not. They would ensure that a similar scheme, if not the scheme itself, was in place to see that the whole of the docks industry was influenced by these disciplines.
There is no doubt in the minds of those serving on the Committee that the Government have not been prepared to listen to any of the arguments advanced about what will happen after the abolition of the scheme; nor have they shown any sign that they are worried about what will happen. It is obvious that the Government have been absolutely doctrinaire and dogmatic in taking this decision, which is why they will not move on the issue.
It is the height of hypocrisy by those who have spoken today to say that the number of hours spent on the Bill so far is an abuse of parliamentary democracy and Committee procedures. In all probability there is no precedent for a Bill being guillotined as this one will be. One can only put it down to the fact that the Government do not want to hear the case or listen to the questions being asked about the docks industry, the scheme ports and what will happen to them after the scheme is abolished.
There is utter confusion among dock workers about the outcome of the Bill and what will happen to their industry. Already, dock workers are leaving the industry en masse. This direct interference, based on pure political dogma, will create great difficulties in the port transport industry.
It has been evident from today's debate that Tory Members intend to get this legislation on the statute book without paying full regard to what is happening in the industry. To them, the scheme is the last bastion of trade union influence in this industry. They have made relentless attacks on the trade union movement since 1979 and they see this as the culmination of their attempts to take away the influence and power of trade unionism in the industry.
This is not the first or second time that attempts have been made to damage trade unionism. They go back to its birth, but it has survived and it will survive. The trade union movement will see through the Government as the public are now seeing through them. In the past four months we have seen ever greater criticisms of the Government's vindictiveness and inability or lack of desire to listen to anybody. Other sections of industry are becoming aware of what is going on.
There can be no justification whatever for the Government's actions. We should see the fullest possible debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House so that the Government answer our questions and the industry is not left in the mess in which they intend to leave it.
5.54 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: Before I say why it is in the interests of my constituents to have this simple legislation passed as quickly as possible, I shall make a couple of points to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Janman: No, we are short of time.
In the mid and late 1970s, the Liberal party supported guillotine motions introduced by the Labour Government. I remind the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that, during a debate on procedure in February 1986, his party voted for the guillotine to be applied to all Bills which spent more than 25 hours in Committee. I will give way to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) now, if he wishes.
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the abolition of the dock labour scheme appeals to his electors, why, last Thursday in the county council elections in Thurrock, did the Labour party win 56 per cent. and the Tory party 35 per cent. of the vote?
Mr. Janman: I shall bring two points to the hon. Gentleman's attention. First, in the ward of Tilbury and South Grays, the turnout dropped to 21 per cent. The Labour party had a much lower vote than it would normally expect. That was mainly due to the opposition of the Tilbury Labour party to the Royal Navy coming to the civil port of Tilbury. Many loyal Labour voters in that part of my constituency are beginning seriously to reconsider whether to continue voting for the Labour party.
Secondly, in 1981 the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock and the Conservatives won the 1983 general election. In 1985, the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock, and we went on to win the 1987 general election. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, in 1989, the Conservatives gained a seat from the Labour party in the borough of Thurrock. Two thirds of the ward is in my constituency. We had an excellent turnout of our supporters and we gained a seat in the borough which has helped to re-establish overall Conservative control in Essex. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour party doing worse in the 1989 county elections in my constituency is pertinent to its doing better in the next general election than in the past two, I am at a complete loss to understand how he can justify his logic and analysis.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can get back to the motion.
Mr. Janman: I shall save the hon. Gentleman further embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker; that would be a good idea.
Since the proposed abolition of the scheme, a large number of companies have already started to contact the chief executive of the port of Tilbury and are showing great interest in coming to Tilbury to carry out many different types of process work. They have long been prevented from coming to Tilbury because of the dock labour scheme. It is extremely frustrating that the Opposition are filibustering on the Bill and making
596
inordinately long and tedious speeches, because every day that the Bill is delayed, masses of new jobs that will be created in my constituency are being further delayed.
Opposition Members have said that it has taken the Government 10 years to introduce the Bill. I remind them that it has taken the Labour party 10 years to produce its policy review. Once the scheme is abolished and it is clear that the dock industry is free of it, the results will be much more positive for the docks, although it has taken us 10 years to introduce the Bill, than the results of the Labour party policy review, although it too has taken 10 years to produce.
This is only an eight-clause Bill. The Committee has been sitting for 29 hours. Even of one subtracts the small amount of time that we have taken off for bio-breaks and something to eat, we have been debating the Bill for 27 hours 33 minutes. That means that an average of more than three hours has been spent on each clause.
As I said, in terms of parliamentary perspective, the Bill is simple and short, and there is certainly no need for it to stay in Committee any longer than 1 pm on 18 May. It seems perfectly reasonable and justifiable to bring debate to a close in that period. We will have plenty of time in which to debate all eight clauses fully, to examine the Bill in detail and for the Committee to report back to the House. I am pleased to be able to support the Government's timetable motion.
6.1 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: It is good to listen to a valedictory from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman); the county council elections last week showed that he is firmly headed for oblivion.
It is customary for Oppositions, whose job it is to oppose, to condemn the use of the guillotine as an unwarranted restriction on parliamentary debate. However, I submit to the House that on this occasion, the violation of parliamentary prerogative is out of all proportion to previous use of this procedure.
My research discloses that the Government have guillotined at least 25 Bills in the past 10 years. Excluding Bills debated in Committee of the whole House, which are special, the average time a Bill spent in Committee before the guillotine was used was no less than 83 hours. That time ranges between 115 hours and 44 hours. The number of Committee hours spent on the Dock Work Bill, as the Leader of the House said, was 29 hours, which is scarcely more than one third of the previous average during the past 10 years. That is why the Opposition are so angry. We do not want to make a merely ritualistic demand but, as the Leader of the House was forced to admit, the Government have set a new precedent, for which there are good reasons.
As far as I can discover, there is no precedent for anywhere near so brief a Committee stage before the imposition of a guillotine. The Government have been forced into using artificial devices to bring the number of hours even to 29. We are entitled to ask why the Government, having clearly decided by the beginning of last week to impose a guillotine, forced the Committee and my hon. Friends to sit into the night last Tuesday until 4.5 am on Wednesday, as Hansard records. Having already decided to use the guillotine, why was there a sittings motion on that day alone of almost 12 hours? There is a pretty obvious answer to that question.

597
The Government clearly wanted to provide a figleaf, however threadbare, for the guillotine that they had already decided to impose. That is not their first abuse of Parliament during the passage of the Bill. The Government have treated the House with contempt at every stage of the handling of the Bill. They produced a White Paper without any consultation and contrary to repeated assurances that we had from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so strongly pointed out in a passage to which he did not receive a reply. The Bill was published the very next day. The Second Reading debate was held on the first permitted day thereafter. The Bill was sent to Committee after only eight days, instead of the usual fortnight, and an afternoon sittings motion was moved by the Minister immediately at the start of the first day in Committee, which is, I believe, without precedent for so short a Bill. Now, to cap it all, a guillotine has been imposed after the Bill has been in Committee for a uniquely brief time. After such a catalogue, all I can say is that the longer the Government are in office, the more arrogant they become day by day.
The indecent haste that the Government have displayed over this Bill can be illustrated by comparison with their treatment of their Pilotage Bill which began its journey through the House five years ago. It was not dissimilar to the Dock Work Bill. It involved 1,300 marine pilots and deregulated pilotage. A Green Paper was produced in 1984 and a White Paper in 1985. The Bill went through Parliament in 1986 and 1987 and a day was appointed for its implementation on 1 October 1988. Therefore, we are entitled to ask why the Government allowed four years for the Pilotage Bill but insistently demand that the Dock Work Bill should be in Committee for only four weeks. That is a relevant question, to which we have never received an answer.
I shall suggest an answer. The reason for the Government railroading the Bill headlong through the House with an arrogant contempt for Parliament—an arrogance matched only by the contempt for the Government shown by the electorate last week—was made clear by the Tory newspaper which sometimes has access to inside information, The Daily Telegraph. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman reads that newspaper, and he may have react the issue of 13 April in which it said:
"Dock employers who use outside workers to break a strike against the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme could risk court action and possibly jail, it emerged last night. Ministers have been alerted to a legal trap facing employers wishing to keep the 40 scheme ports running.
Until the Bill scrapping the 52-year-old scheme is on the statute book later this year, it will remain illegal to employ non-registered dockers in ports maintained by the Dock Labour Boards.
At present, if an employer taken on non-registered workers without the approval of the local Dock Labour Board he is liable to prosecution and imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine or both.
The threat of legal action … is likely to dissuade employers from bringing in non-registered workers."
This is the point:
"It has also convinced Ministers that the Bill should go through Parliament swiftly."
There we have it. The guillotine has nothing to do with parliamentary niceties.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is a scandal.
Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who has just bowled in in his customary fashion, thinks that it
598
is a scandal; so do we, but for more serious reasons. The guillotine has nothing to do with the niceties of Parliament, about which the Government care not a fig. The Bill is being driven through the House at unprecedented speed because it is a strike-breaking measure in the event of a strike. That is the real, unspoken reason why the Government are ready to breach all previous parliamentary rules and why they turned the Committee stage into such a farce, in which amendments were not even being seriously considered.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman used that extract in Committee, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse the Government of trying to engineer a strike and at the same time engineering a method of overcoming a strike if it happens. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify his position?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is extremely naive if he thinks that the Government are incapable of doing both. Many people are suspicious that they are doing just that. The Government have adopted a cynical posture. The Secretary of State says, for public consumption, that the Government will not become involved in the current trade dispute, and that negotiation is purely a matter for the local employers. However, at the same time, behind the scenes, the Government break every rule in the parliamentary book in order to abolish the scheme as fast as possible to hand the employers the most potent strike-breaking weapon to use if industrial action occurs.
The trouble with the Government is that they are far more interested in precipitating a strike and then making political capital out of it, as a distraction from their mounting economic and political difficulties, than they are in trying to prevent a strike in the first place. They are uniquely in a position to prevent one if they choose to make a real effort to do so. That is why the Secretary of State keeps intoning in committee that the abolition of the scheme is a matter for the Government and that the role of Parliament must not be usurped, yet he refuses point blank, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Biaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) so eloquently pointed out, to negotiate on what might follow the scheme, saying that that is a matter for the employers. When the Transport and General Workers union tries to negotiate with the employers, it is told that this is all a political matter for the Government. If the Government would only put half the energy into negotiating to prevent a strike that they are putting into provoking one by adamantly refusing to negotiate, Britain could be saved a dangerous, lengthy and damaging strike which no one except the Government wants.
The Secretary of State's assurances do not carry much credibility when he forecasts a smooth transition to local collective bargaining in which employers will respect employee rights and local trade union bargaining. That was the story that the Minister repeatedly put across in Committee. A letter from one local employer sent out on 27 April from Mersey Container Terminals Ltd. gives the lie to these claims by the right hon. Gentleman:
"If after a ballot has been held and by a majority of strikers called some of the men go on strike and some stay in work those men on strike would be dismissed for breach of contract … if once again a strike has been called and all men go on strike they will all be dismissed for breach of contract."

599
That lets the cat out of the bag. It means that, under the new regime, there will be no right to strike or to withdraw labour. So much for the preservation of basic employee rights.
This same employer goes on to set out an 18-item employment contract which each worker is required to sign and return to the employer. So in future, there will be no collective bargaining—so much for all the smooth talk about a natural return to normal trade union bargaining rights. This shows clearly what abolition of the dock labour scheme is all about.
Abolition is not about efficiency. A recent study states:
"A crude measure of efficiency, the tonnage moved per docker per year, reveals an even result between both scheme and non-scheme ports. For 1987, the last year that complete figures were available, each scheme docker moved 13,346 tonnes of cargo, compared with 13,655 per docker in non-port schemes".
So by that efficiency measure, there is no difference between scheme and non-scheme ports.
Abolition is not about productivity. The scheme ports have had a productivity gain of no less than 720 per cent. over the past 20 years. That is an indisputable fact, and it is a record almost unmatched in British industry.
Abolition is not even about profits. Associated British Ports, the largest port employer, returned profits last year 22 per cent. up—£46 million; its dividends were up by 33 per cent. and the chairman's salary went up a miserable 22 per cent. to a mere L119,000 per year. Abolition is all about power, the ending of joint determination, and the reassertion of the unilateral prerogative of the employers to hire and fire at will.
I end by quoting the words of a Tilbury docker, who expresses this much more clearly than anyone here could:
"The say we have in our industry is the say that every working man should have in his industry. We have it and they are trying to take it away from us. Doing away with the scheme has nothing to do with port efficiency. It is purely political. Under the national dock labour scheme we have an input into how our industry is run, something that is totally foreign to this current Government's way of thinking. No working man should have a say in how his industry is run—that is what they think and that is really what it is all about. It has got nothing to do with efficiency; it is all to do with dogma."
It is because this Bill is about political dogma, not economic efficiency, and about strike breaking, not the national interest, that we utterly reject this unprecedented, partisan and self-serving use of the guillotine.
6.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): It must be pointed out first that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) said, after 30 hours debate in Committee we are only part way through clause 1. At that rate of progress we shall be in Committee until 1990. This motion will make it possible to hold a further 30 hours of debate, making a total of 60 hours for an eight-clause Bill.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) incorrectly referred to a lack of precedents. There are precedents, and I think he knows them—
Mr. Meacher: Name one.
Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House named two: the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1946–47 was introduced by a Labour Government, and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill of 1979–80 was introduced by this Government.
The flavour of the Committee proceedings can be sampled by reflecting on the conduct of the Opposition whip. Whips are traditionally the silent men of Westminster. In this case, the Opposition Whip has been warned nine times from the Chair for tedious repetition.
There have been lengthy contributions by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Looking around the Committee Room, he said how nice it was, after Sky Television, to have such a big audience. I do not object to that. The trouble is that it went entirely to his head and led to a speech of more than two hours.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend will allow me, no.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has frankly admitted that his intention has been to delay. I am not saying that we have not learnt from the Opposition in Committee. Sometimes we have not learnt much about the dock labour scheme, but we have learnt about a whole range of other matters—the after-hours activities of television crews visiting Rotterdam, the printing of Chiang Kai Shek's banknotes, employee relations in the Japanese mushroom-growing industry and the frustrated ambitions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
To this gallery we have now added the shadow Leader of the House, who predicts that there will be a return to casual work. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's predictions about transport before. When I denationalised the National Freight Corporation, he predicted that no one would want the shares, and certainly not people working for the company. That became the most famous employee shareholding scheme of all time. The hon. Gentleman's predictions have about as much authority as those of the weathermen before the great storm of 1987.
Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident that there will be no return to casual working, why will he not insist that the employers guarantee that in negotiations with the union? Why will he not give the assurance statutory backing so that, if the employers turn out to be lying, a law will be in place to offer dockers the protection they ask for?
Mr. Fowler: We are moving away from a statutory scheme. I should have thought that virtually every commentator in this country accepts that the undertakings given by the employers about no return to casualism take the position a great deal further than it has ever been before. The Opposition should accept that, too.
Mr. Meacher: If that is the case, why was it that in 1970, when employers gave exactly the same commitment, within 18 months we were back to casualisation in quite a major fashion?
Mr. Fowler: Opposition Members need only look at the position in the non-scheme ports—there is no need to look into the crystal ball—where trade and employment have increased and there has been no return to casual labour. It is about time that Labour Members accepted that.

601
The suggestion of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, that we had planned the debate for today because there might be a tube strike must rank as one of the silliest suggestions ever heard in the House, even from the current occupants of the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) raised a number of points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said, we need not be prepared to take lectures from him, considering that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day.
The right hon. Gentleman particularly asked about the view of Lord Aldington. We have that on record, in response to the statement made in the other place. The noble Lord said at that stage that he was wholly in agreement with the line that had been announced. In short — I paraphrase his remarks—he said that he was delighted that a scheme based on entirely different conditions, not there today, which involved damaging casual labour, not there today, would be ended and that all the ports would be put on level pegging. That position of the noble Lord adds authority and support to the case that we are putting.
Several hon. Members referred to the position of people in the industry from the point of view of consultation. The positions of those involved have been irreconcilable. The Transport and General Workers Union has stated repeatedly its attachment to the fundamentals of the scheme and has regularly threatened national strikes in the event of any suggestion that the scheme's damaging restrictions should be reduced. The union has refused five approaches from the employers to consider voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme.
When the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, invited the unions and employers to discuss voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme in 1986, the national secretary of the TGWU docks group, Mr. Connolly, replied:
"Having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal."
In 1987 he repeated that by saying:
"The policy of the Docks and Waterways Group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or revision of the scheme, and that opposition will take the form of a national docks strike."
It is significant, that in the debate in Committee and indeed in the debate outside, little attempt has been made to defend the dock labour scheme. When it has been defended, that has been done on arguments that applied to a position 40 or 50 years ago. The debate is now establishing that, in the context of the 1980s and 1990s, the dock labour scheme cannot be defended.
It is impossible to defend a statutory monopoly which makes it a criminal offence to employ other than registered dock workers in many of the ports of this country. It is impossible to defend a scheme which acts as a disincentive to investment, not only in scheme ports but in the areas around the ports. It is impossible to defend a scheme which, in spite of all its restrictions and regulations, has seen employment fall and trade disappear to non-scheme ports and to ports on the continent.
In the final analysis, the dock labour scheme is against the interests of the ports, against the interests of the areas adjoining the ports and against the interests of those
602
working in the ports industry. In particular this is the case when the employers have given the clearest assurances that there will be no return to casual working.
The Government put the case for the Bill in the White Paper and in the Second Reading debate, when abolition had a majority of over 100. The time has come for decision. Prevarication and delay can be in nobody's interest. In particular it can be in nobody's interest when registered dockers are being balloted on strike action. Against that background also, there can be no case for uncertainty about what Parliament intends.
Whatever may be the view of the Opposition on strike action—we still await a statement from the hon. Member for Oldham, West on industrial action and his response to it—we do not believe that a strike can be justified. A strike can only harm the scheme ports and ultimately the work force taking the action. More than that, it cannot be justified because the right place for the decision to be taken on a statutory scheme is in Parliament. That is particularly the case remembering that the hon. Member for Oldham, West put forward in Committee the case for a new statutory dock labour scheme. He made the position of the Opposition clear when he said twice in Committee:
"we believe in a regulated dock work industry rather than moving towards either national or local collective bargaining."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1989; c. 40.]
Thus, the Labour party is committed to a new statutory dock labour scheme. In those circumstances, a strike would be entirely unjustified. Whether there should be a statutory scheme should be decided by Parliament, not on the picket line.
We look forward to that political debate. It will be important because, according to amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, he wants not just a new statutory scheme but a scheme which includes provisions from the 1976 legislation and which were rejected by the House when the Labour party was in office.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would be to extend the scheme to new occupations such as warehousing, packing and unpacking containers, and to new areas within half a mile of any harbour area. So the hon. Gentleman, not content with taking us back to the 1970s in industrial relations, arid not content with his plans to legalise the secondary picket, now plans to go back to the mid-1970s for his dock work scheme.
We believe that the case for abolition is overwhelming. Whatever may have been the position at the time of the second world war, the restrictions of the scheme are not relevant to the needs of the ports industry today. Even less do they match up to the challenges that British ports will face in the 1990s. [Interruption.] It is a pity that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who leads temporarily for the Opposition, is not even prepared to listen to the argument on this issue.
We want to ensure a good future for our ports and for those working in them. But that future will not be assured by the antiquated restrictions of the dock labour scheme.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Fowler: No, I will not give way.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), but I must tell him and those who put forward similar arguments that they are fighting yesterday's battle on dock work. If they doubt that, they need only look at

603
the experience of the ports outside the scheme, where trade has expanded, employment has grown and nobody has seriously claimed that that progress has been achieved by the exploitation of the dockers in those ports.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Fowler: No, I have only two minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman has spent five minutes talking to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Fowler: No.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fowler: Pay, hours and working conditions in the non-scheme ports are negotiated by the Transport and General Workers Union, the same union which conducts the negotiations in the scheme ports. Every assurance has been given that there will be no return to casual working. It is not revolutionary to suggest that dockers should move up to the position occupied by virtually every other worker in this country.
It is now in nobody's interest that there should be delay. Without the restrictions, the scheme ports will be able to compete better. Our proposals are for the benefit of the ports industry, the work force and for the inner city areas around the ports.
We know what has happened in the non-scheme ports—we have seen the development of trade and of employment. That is in stark contrast to everything that has happened in the scheme ports. That is why we believe that the dock labour scheme should be abolished. The motion provides ample time for a full debate on the remainder of a short Bill. The time has come for decision and it is for Parliament to decide the issue. The decision should be taken in Parliament and not on the picket lines that the Labour party is so enthusiastic to reinstate.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 170.

Division No. 188]

[6.30 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Aitken, Jonathan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Alexander, Richard

Brazier, Julian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bright, Graham

Allason, Rupert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Amess, David

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

Amos, Alan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Arbuthnot, James

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ashby, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Atkins, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Baldry, Tony

Burns, Simon

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burt, Alistair

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Chris

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Carrington, Matthew

Body, Sir Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Boswell, Tim

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bottomley, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Bowis, John

Chope, Christopher

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Churchill, Mr

604

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Key, Robert

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Knapman, Roger

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Conway, Derek

Knowles, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Cope, Rt Hon John

Latham, Michael

Couchman, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Cran, James

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Curry, David

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

Lightbown, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lilley, Peter

Day, Stephen

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Devlin, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Dover, Den

McCrindle, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Dykes, Hugh

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Eggar, Tim

Maclean, David

Evennett, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Favell, Tony

Major, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Malins, Humfrey

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mans, Keith

Fookes, Dame Janet

Maples, John

Forman, Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Forth, Eric

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mates, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maude, Hon Francis

Freeman, Roger

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

French, Douglas

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gale, Roger

Miscampbell, Norman

Gardiner, George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Sir David

Gill, Christopher

Moate, Roger

Glyn, Dr Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Moore, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Alastair

Moss, Malcolm

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Neale, Gerrard

Gow, Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Gregory, Conal

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Patnick, Irvine

Grist, Ian

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ground, Patrick

Portillo, Michael

Hague, William

Raffan, Keith

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Renton, Tim

Hanley, Jeremy

Rhodes James, Robert

Hannam, John

Riddick, Graham

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

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Harris, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Haselhurst, Alan

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Rost, Peter

Hayward, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

Heddle, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hind, Kenneth

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Shersby, Michael

Howard, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Speller, Tony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hunter, Andrew

Squire, Robin

Irvine, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Jack, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Jackson, Robert

Steen, Anthony

Janman, Tim

Stern, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stevens, Lewis

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

605

Stokes, Sir John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sumberg, David

Walden, George

Summerson, Hugo

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Waller, Gary

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Watts, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wells, Bowen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilshire, David

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Woodcock, Mike

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Yeo, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Tony Durant and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Fraser, John

Allen, Graham

Fyfe, Maria

Anderson, Donald

Galloway, George

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Armstrong, Hilary

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Gordon, Mildred

Ashton, Joe

Gould, Bryan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Graham, Thomas

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Barron, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Battle, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, Margaret

Grocott, Bruce

Bell, Stuart

Harman, Ms Harriet

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bermingham, Gerald

Hinchliffe, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Blair, Tony

Home Robertson, John

Boateng, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Illsley, Eric

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cartwright, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Kennedy, Charles

Clelland, David

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cohen, Harry

Kirkwood, Archy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lamond, James

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbett, Robin

Leighton, Ron

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cousins, Jim

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Livingstone, Ken

Cummings, John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

Loyden, Eddie

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McKelvey, William

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McNamara, Kevin

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

McWilliam, John

Dixon, Don

Madden, Max

Dobson, Frank

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Doran, Frank

Marek, Dr John

Eadie, Alexander

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Eastham, Ken

Martlew, Eric

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Maxton, John

Fatchett, Derek

Meacher, Michael

Fearn, Ronald

Meale, Alan

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Michael, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flannery, Martin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flynn, Paul

Morgan, Rhodri

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foster, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

606

Mowlam, Marjorie

Skinner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Murphy, Paul

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

Nellist, Dave

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

O'Brien, William

Snape, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Soley, Clive

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Patchett, Terry

Steinberg, Gerry

Pike, Peter L.

Stott, Roger

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Strang, Gavin

Prescott, John

Straw, Jack

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Turner, Dennis

Radice, Giles

Vaz, Keith

Randall, Stuart

Wall, Pat

Redmond, Martin

Wallace, James

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Walley, Joan

Reid, Dr John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Richardson, Jo

Wareing, Robert N.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wigley, Dafydd

Robertson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Rogers, Allan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Rooker, Jeff

Wilson, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Rowlands, Ted

Wray, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Short, Clare

Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House ills Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

607
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—
(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
608

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Reccommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, reccommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Smoking in Public Places
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the procedure under which we shall debate the motion. The motion is much more fundamental and important than may at first seem apparent, because it represents a significant change in Government policy.
The motion announces that, on all Euro-nanny smoking matters, the Government now intend suddenly to fall back on a most welcome voluntary approach, and to declare that such matters are no longer within the competence of the EEC.
On 14 November 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor as Under-Secretary of State for Health—introduced an EEC directive on tobacco products whose intention was to relabel all tobacco cartons in this country, on the ground that it was a thoroughly good thing that the EEC should attempt to reduce people's smoking activities and to stop them smoking. So from compulsion on 14 November we have moved to voluntarism on 8 March.
That change is welcome, but I understand that the House has only 15 minutes to debate the motion before the procedural axe falls. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health should come to the House to explain the difference between the policy of 14 November and that being adopted today and also to make it clear that something of considerable significance is occurring in our relations with the EEC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Although the procedural axe will fall at 7 o'clock, we shall return to the motion after private business has been dealt with. The hon. Gentleman's other points can be raised during the debate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a proposal before the House from the EEC in the name of Lord Cockfield, its former Commissioner, stating that the Government should, to conform with the Single European Act, reduce cigarette tax. The motion now before the House aims at reducing smoking, but according to the Department of Health, the EEC proposals would, because of reduced taxation, serve to increase it. My understanding of parliamentary rules is that the House cannot consider conflicting proposals. I wonder whether that rule applies also to the EEC proposal instructing the Government to reduce taxation on cigarettes. Do the restrictions placed on normal parliamentary debate apply to EEC proposals?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Nothing in the motion before the House is against parliamentary rules. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue his line of argument, he should do so in debate, after the motion has been moved.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft
610
Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area.
Smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom today. Ninety per cent. of all lung cancer deaths, 20 per cent. of all deaths due to coronary heart disease and 90 per cent. of all deaths caused by bronchitis are associated with smoking. Smoking during pregnancy may now be the single most important cause of late foetal death and leads to reduced birth weight and increased perinatal mortality. It is likely that giving up smoking is the single most important thing that smokers can do to improve their health. The Government actively discourage smoking and have an extensive public education programme run by the Health Education Authority.
Most smokers take up regular smoking before the age of 18, and it has been estimated that of the 250 million children and teenagers now living in the European region of the World Health Organisation between 30 and 40 million will be killed in later life by tobacco. It is obviously crucial to reach young people of school age and help them to resist the pressure to start smoking. In January the Prime Minister launched a three-year campaign to reduce the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This campaign will be run jointly by the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health and will cost the Department £2 milion each year for the next three years. The campaign will use the mass media—including TV, radio and magazines—to influence teenage children, and it will also seek the support of a wide range of national and local organisations, including schools, local education authorities, health authorities, Action on Smoking and Health and leading health charities.
This debate gives members a valuable opportunity to consider the draft EC recommendation on smoking in public places which will come to the Council of Ministers on 16 May. The purpose of the recommendation is to exhort member states to make progress in providing smoke-free areas in enclosed premises to which the public have access. The Government wholeheartedly support that aim. Our approach of encouraging the provision of smoke-free areas has met with a good deal of success, and I would very much like that to continue. However, it is very important that we do not allow the Commission to use the recommendation as a means to extend its competence. That is why, as I will explain shortly, the United Kingdom has proposed that we should replace the recommendation with a mixed resolution. I shall describe what is meant by that in a moment.
Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend is dealing with the issue of extending the competence of the EC, will he now deal with the point that I raised in my point of order a few moments ago? Her Majesty's Government were all in favour of extending that competence to deal with compulsory anti-smoking directives a few months ago. Why has there been a complete change of heart tonight? Why are the Government now in favour only of the voluntary approach to curbing excessive smoking?
I know that occupants of my hon. Friend's office seem to have a rather high casualty rate nowadays, so I advise him to choose his words carefully. Nevertheless, the ambivalence needs to be clarified.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will

611
be able to amplify his point, but I shall try to address it in the few remarks that I intend to make in opening the debate. If I am able—with your permission—to reply at the end, I may expand on them then.
Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—
Mr. Freeman: I should like to make progress.
Mr. Marlow: If I intervene at this stage, I dare say that my hon. Friend will be able to make even swifter progress.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the competence of the Community with regard to this issue, as, I am sure, are most right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend is aware of the existence of the scrap of paper called the Single European Act, which states that the Community—I presume that that includes my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—was
"Moved by the will … to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union".
If my right hon. Friend has signed a treaty to move us towards European union, does that not mean that this measure is a proper measure to be decided at European level, and that therefore Europe should have competence? How can my hon. Friend say that Europe does not have competence when our right hon. Friend has signed this turbid and unpleasant document?
Mr. Freeman: First, we argue that the changes made by the European Commission in the text of the document that we have before us are acceptable, in the sense that the document does not recommend legislation but would enable Her Majesty's Government to continue with their programme of encouraging individuals, authorities and other bodies to operate a voluntary code limiting or banning smoking in certain parts of public places. Secondly, we argue that under the treaty the Commission has no power in public health matters. I hope that I have made that crystal clear.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's courtesy in giving way. One thing that we would love to know is what the Government can do if they take the view that the measure is beyond the competence of the EC, but the majority of Ministers decide to approve it. Is there anything that we can do to stop it from coming into effect? Some of us are very worried about that. Have we any powers to stop it unless we can persuade all the member states unanimously that the EC is not competent?
Mr. Freeman: A unanimous decision is required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If my hon. Friends will permit me to develop my remarks, I shall demonstrate that a mixed resolution or recommendation combines the elements of a matter within the general competence of the Council and those of a decision reached by the various Ministers present, outside the treaty of Rome, if they believe that it is in the interests of all the nations involved. I shall be arguing that in the case of public health matters, which are separate from environmental matters, the writ of the treaty does not run, and we resist the general priciple that the Commission should seek to extend its powers in this regard.
It may be helpful if I set out some of the background. There has been much concern in recent years about the
612
risks of "secondary" or "passive" smoking, and that is the underlying motivation behind the recommendation. The Government accept the findings of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which concluded that there was a 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers who are habitually exposed to tobacco smoke. That could account for several hundred deaths each year. There is also a risk of increased respiratory disease in children, and in pregnant women the development of the foetus may be damaged. Tobacco smoke can also cause considerable irritation to the eyes and throat.
Public awareness about the risks of passive smoking has increased public demand for the provision of smoke-free areas. Generally, smokers and non-smokers alike consider it right that smoke-free areas should, if at all possible, be available in public places. The Government actively encourage the implementation of smoking policies and welcome the increasing introduction of smoke-free zones in public places such as cinemas, shops, restaurants and public transport.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why, then, have the Government done nothing to introduce no-smoking areas in pubs? Is the Minister aware that the House approved my ten-minute Bill providing that there should be non-smoking areas in pubs, yet the previous Health Minister—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—actively resisted any demand for action? Why are pubs the one area in which the Government refuse to try to enforce such a requirement?
Mr. Freeman: We argue that in the case of restaurants, pubs and aeroplanes—the hon. Gentleman will remember a recent debate in the House on banning smoking in aeroplanes—it is for the publican, the restaurateur, the airline or whatever authority is involved to decide. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is already legislation relating to transport: London Underground has banned smoking, which it is able to do under its byelaws—not, I should add, for reasons of public health, but for reasons of public safety. There is a considerable difference between legislation to protect the public safety and legislation to protect the public health.
Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend has outlined the dangers of passive smoking. On what evidence does he make his statement? Does it come from his Department, or can it be hearsay?
Mr. Freeman: I was hoping to come to that point shortly, but I shall deal with it directly to help my hon. Friend. We believe that passive smoking—that is, the inhalation of the cigarette smoke of others in public and, indeed, private places—leads to several hundred deaths a year. We believe that the incidence and possible incidence of cancer, particularly lung cancer, is increased, especially for those who are regularly exposed to smoking by others. That is not the conclusion of Ministers or other politicians; it is based on the advice of the chief medical officer.
We believe that in general voluntary policies are the best way to proceed, because such policies—being produced in response to consumer or employee demand—will cater for the needs of both smokers and non-smokers, and can be tailored more easily to individual areas and workplaces. We believe that such voluntary and

613
local action is preferable to a national legislated ban. As I have said before, where banning smoking is necessary for safety or hygiene we have not hesitated to introduce legislation, and under existing legislation London Underground has banned smoking for safety reasons.
The EC draft recommendation that we are considering tonight originates from the Europe Against Cancer action plan. Hon. Members may have seen the proposal as originally put forward by the Commission. The explanatory memorandum describes the amendments that have been made to the original proposal. As it now stands, the draft recommendation calls on member states to work towards a ban on smoking in enclosed premises open to the public and on public transport. This may be done through legislation or by other means, including voluntary means, which is the approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
The recommendation also calls for clearly defined areas to be set aside for smokers both in enclosed public places and on public transport—especially where long journeys might be involved. The recommendation is based on the treaty of Rome as a whole, not on any one article, which means that unaminity among member states is required if the measure is to be adopted.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said earlier that the European Community does not have competence with regard to—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

King's Cross Railways Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not accepted the instruction standing in the name of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, he has selected the other two instructions and it will be for the convenience of the House to debate them together, with the motion for Second Reading.
7 pm
Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill gives powers to British Rail to carry out certain works at King's Cross, and I will describe them briefly in a moment, but the House will want to put these rather technical details in a broader context and see how the new King's Cross, made possible by the Bill, fits in with transport, planning and regional policies.
I hope that all in the House will agree on three broad objectives. The first is the need to invest substantially public transport, particularly in London, where the limitations of any policy relying too heavily on private transport are all too visible. I detect an impatience among Londoners, among those who commute to London and those who visit and use public transport in London about its quality and limitations. People want its capacity increased; they want it to be safer; and they want it to be more accessible and convenient to use. The Bill will help to achieve that objective by the improvements to the Underground, and by the improvement in the interchange between British Rail and London Regional Transport. Given constraints on public expenditure, and the understandable wish to keep fares down, if these improvements and increases in capacity can be funded in part from planning gain, so much the better.
That leads to the second objective. We all wish to bring back into use derelict land, particularly in our inner cities, where its misuse is least defensible. Unemployment in parts of inner London is still far too high and, with pressure on land elsewhere that has a high amenity value, the neglect of acres upon acres of unused land in the heart of the capital cannot be tolerated. The works in the Bill unlock the development potential of the land behind King's Cross. This capital surplus will be used by British Rail to pay for other works in a partnership between public and private sectors, which is now accepted by all parties as a sensible way to proceed. The development will also bring jobs to a part of London where they are still scarce. Some 30,000 jobs will be provided in the associated redevelopment of the area, and rightly so, because King's Cross is identified as a preferred office location in the Greater London development plan, subject to improvement of the public transport system. The Bill does that.
In the draft strategic planning guidance for London, the Secretary of State pointed out in March:
"there are likely to be development opportunities on large sites in London which were formerly required for public utilities or services, but which are no longer needed for these purposes."
King's Cross is just such a site. For 15 years, it has been identified by local authorities as an area of opportunity. The works in the Bill free the development land, planning

615
permission for which is being sought in the normal way by the developer from the local authority. The opportunity is now here.
Thirdly, as our trade with Europe increases and links with markets there become more important, we must ensure that all regions of the country have access to those markets and the opportunity to share in the benefits. The Bill helps to achieve that objective by linking the British Rail network in the north with that in the south, and in a way that no other transport interchange ever could. Direct travel from Europe to the north becomes possible.
I should now like to relate the works in the Bill to the broader objectives that I have outlined. Much of the Bill improves public transport. Work No. 5 provides a connection between the east coast main line, and St. Pancras station. This will allow Network SouthEast trains from the Peterborough and Cambridge lines to run into St. Pancras station. At the moment, these trains end up in a separate suburban station to the west of King's Cross, some way from the Underground and the rest of the services in the terminal. Demand on these lines has been growing and, as there is spare capacity at St. Pancras, it makes sense to use it by providing this connection. Works Nos. 11A and 11B lengthen the platforms at St. Pancras to take 12-car trains and provide additional platforms to accommodate future growth.
On the same theme, works Nos. 1 to 7 and Nos. 10 to 5 in the London Regional Transport half of the schedule provide for the enlargement of the existing Underground ticket hall, which is already becoming very congested, and for new subways which will relieve pressure and provide additional access and escape routes. King's Cross-St. Pancras is one of the busiest and most complex Underground stations, handling some 80 million passengers a year, serving five Underground lines and two British Rail terminals. The provisions in the Bill cope with current congestion problems, and provide for future growth already projected, plus the additional traffic from the railway lands site and the improvements to British Rail services.
In addition, a new Underground ticket hall—the eastern ticket hall—will be built to serve the Thameslink platforms and the Northern, Piccadilly and Victoria lines. This replaces the present entrance in Pentonville road, at a more convenient location and with quicker exits from the three tube lines. The additional subways proposed also provide a secondary exit from each of the Underground platforms—valuable in the case of emergency evacuation of the station. Work No. 13 links this new eastern ticket hall with the main Underground ticket hall.
The most important of the subway works provide direct connections between the Circle and Metropolitan line platforms, and the three deep tube lines—the Northern, Piccadilly and Victoria. At the moment, if one wants to change, one has to go through the already overcrowded ticket hall. This new subway connection will reduce traffic in the ticket hall by about 30 per cent., and implements recommendation 142 in the Fennell report.
Work No. 4 replaces the present unfriendly access to the Underground from St. Pancras down a narrow and tortuous subway with an enlarged and improved one.
The principal work in the Bill is a new British Rail station, beneath the existing King's Cross main line
616
station. At its northern end, the tracks divide to join both the east coast main line and the midland main line. At the south end, the tracks connect with Thameslink and, at a future date, and if the House so decides, with the Channel Tunnel rail link.
Mr. Roy Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman is the spokesman for the sponsors of the Bill, perhaps I should mention to him that I have received a communication from a body known as the Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales. It consists of four major county councils: Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. They complain that none of the proposals provides for any link between the western region InterCity service operating from Paddington to south Wales and the proposed new terminal at King's Cross. They say that if they are to benefit from the Channel tunnel traffic, such a link is absolutely essential. Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about that point?
Sir George Young: I agree that it will be important to ensure that people in south Wales have access to the Channel tunnel terminal and, through that, access to Europe. Whether it makes sense to provide that access at King's Cross and, therefore, through the Bill, I am not sure, but I shall pass on to British Rail the hon. Gentleman's valuable point in order to make sure that south Wales benefits from the links with Europe.
A new station is needed anyway. The existing Thameslink station is already inadequate. The platforms were originally designed for the local service from Moorgate to Bedford, before Thameslink was conceived. With this popular cross-London line now in operation, the platforms—particularly northbound—are very crowded, and they cannot be widened because they are up against the Circle line. The only way to cope with extra demand is to relocate the station, which provides the opportunity to bring it closer to the main line platforms, thereby improving interchange and making it accessible to people with disabilities.
At the moment, Thameslink reaches only the Bedford line to the north. The proposed connection links it to the east coast main line as well. This opens up a wealth of opportunities, such as trains from Peterborough to Gatwick, Cambridge to Sevenoaks, and so on.
Next to the new Thameslink platforms, again beneath King's Cross main line, are the international platforms, and it is this part of the Bill which has generated some controversy. Why another international station, and why King's Cross?
All the forecasts show that existing capacity at Waterloo, the other international terminal that is due to open in 1996, will not be able to cope with expected traffic beyond the turn of the century. Putting aside the strong arguments for a terminal at King's Cross in its own right, we need to develop more capacity to cope with rail-based traffic to and from Europe.
King's Cross is uniquely well served by other British Rail and Underground lines, as well as being easily accessible by bus and taxi. That convenience of interchange and access to public transport puts it way ahead of other rivals—notably Stratford—in its convenience for customers. In particular, it is the best calling point on the way to the north, allowing a passenger to get off a train from Paris to Newcastle and get on one from

617
Brussels to Manchester. Further, it offers international passengers easy interchange to Inter-City services to the rest of the country and to Network SouthEast services to locations closer to London. That ability to integrate the international services with the existing British Rail network simply does not exist at any other main line terminal, let alone some of the other options that have been canvassed.
Mr. Frank Dobson: If all this is true, when the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and the location of the first terminal at Waterloo were being considered, why did counsel for British Rail say that King's Cross was unsuitable because of overcrowding of tube lines and above-ground links?
Sir George Young: As I have explained, other provisions of the Bill increase capacity at King's Cross. Underground capacity is being increased by other parts of the Bill. At that stage, forecasts were much lower, and it was thought that Waterloo would suffice. Forecasts have been revised and it is no longer suitable to rely only on Waterloo as the other terminal.
Mr. Dobson: Counsel for British Rail also asserted that the roads around King's Cross were far too crowded and could not cope with additional traffic. They are more crowded now than when he said that.
Sir George Young: The philosophy behind King's Cross is its access by public transport, which puts it way ahead of all the other possible interchanges. Compared with the car, which is the form of transport that would have to be used for some of the other options, King's Cross is unrivalled in its access to public transport.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Before the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) intervened, my hon. Friend said that two or three major cities in the north will have through trains from the continent. My hon. Friend did not mention Britain's second biggest city—Birmingham. Will he comment on the scope for through trains from the continent to Birmingham?
Sir George Young: The Bill does not preclude other links, such as those to the west coast main line. If British Rail decides to develop other links, legislation will be brought forward at the appropriate time.
While the Bill makes provision for the second international terminal to be at King's Cross, it does not prejudge the exact line of route of the link to it from the Channel tunnel. The chosen route will be the subject of a separate Bill. As I have said, the Bill also does not preclude a passenger link to the west coast main line.
The reason why provision for the international terminal needs to be made in the Bill is that the construction works for it need to be integrated with the other works to which I have referred. The additional Thameslink capacity is required now, and British Rail wants to present all the proposals for King's Cross together.
The platforms on the proposed international station will take 16-coach trains and two power cars. Those platforms, which will be below ground, will be linked by subways to the new terminal building, the main line platforms and the Underground. Provision is also being made for security staff, Customs and immigration and police.
618
The new terminal building will be located between King's Cross and St. Pancras. It will serve both stations and replace the unattractive structure in front of King's Cross, planning consent for 'which expires in 1993. The new concourse will have access to both main line stations, the international and Thameslink platforms and the Underground ticket hall.
I know that local Members of Parliament are concerned about the impact of traffic on their constituencies. We have already heard some interventions expressing such concern. I hope that I have made it clear that the philosophy behind the Bill is to encourage access by public transport. It is hoped that people travelling north from Europe will not travel to King's Cross by taxi from Waterloo, but board a train at Paris that travels to King's Cross.
Improvements are planned for the road network, especially better access by bus. At the moment, one is tipped out in a nearby road and makes one's way to the station. There will be proper access to the station by bus and improvements to the road network at the junctions of Caledonian road, Pentonville road and King's Cross road, which is wholly inadequate at the moment and for which improvements have been planned for 15 years.
As sponsor of the Bill, I have taken a special interest in Camley street natural park, about which I have received many letters. In the five years since it started, the park, which is ably run by the London Wildlife Trust, has become a popular destination for Londoners interested in its nature reserve. The location of the international terminal, and the connections between the east coast and midland lines, require its relocation during construction and its reinstatement on a larger site thereafter.
Together with the developers of the railway lands and London Wildlife Trust, British Rail has identified a larger area for the park to be re-established within the new development. Every assistance will be given to the trust to continue its work during construction and to restock the park when established on its permanent site on completion. I have no doubt that it will then be better placed to continue its valuable educational role within an enhanced and enlarged natural park.
The Bill offers the opportunity to improve the appearance of this part of London and to turn King's Cross and St. Pancras into not only Europe's largest transport interchange but an attractive set of buildings of which Londoners can be proud. One cannot see the front of King's Cross at present because of the temporary structure in front of it. Once removed, the train sheds, which are grade 1 listed buildings, will be visible again in all their glory. Between them and the Midland hotel will be the new terminal building, which had been designed to the highest architectural standards to match its neighbours. The new vista will be incomparably better than the muddle that we have at present.
I have outlined the provisions of the Bill and put them in a broader context. If time permits and the House allows it, I shall be happy to deal with points made in the debate. Of course, achieving the objectives that I have outlined involves disruption, inconvenience and disappointment for some local people and businesses. I do not disguise that fact, and local Members of Parliament are right to fight for those whom they represent. Changes have been made, further consultation is planned, some have petitioned against the Bill and the Committee will hear them. I have no doubt that Parliament should endorse the strategy behind the Bill, which is to enhance the role of King's

619
Cross in our nation's public transport network, to build stronger links between Scotland, the north, the midlands and Europe and to improve the Underground in the light of the Fennell report.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving details at this stage, which is helpful. He mentioned the importance of public transport and through trains from the continent to the north. Is he aware that British Rail has stated that its policy is to try to concentrate international trains from London to the continent because it is more economic to do so and to get people to change in London? Can he give any undertakings that that policy will be changed to provide from King's Cross—I should prefer from Stratford—through trains to the north and Scotland, as so many of my hon. Friends reasonably want?
Sir George Young: I have no instructions, and I should not want British Rail to do anything that minimised the search for economy. If I can offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman now or later, I shall try to do so.
The hon. Gentleman hit me in mid-peroration. I was saying that the House should support the Bill's objectives of improving the Underground in the light of the Fennell report, facilitating the regeneration of a rundown part of London and providing local employment.
I believe that this is the most exciting transport project to come before the House for a long time, and I hope that hon. Members give it their support.
7.18 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I must record my dismay at the way in which the private Bill procedure is being used to bring in the proposals for King's Cross. The Bill represents the piecemeal approach to major transport and development planning, which should be the province of far more sensible and democratic procedures than those available under the private Bill process. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) the promoter of the Bill, who normally says far more sensible things in the House, said that the Bill did not preclude a passenger link to services to the north-west. Neither he nor British Rail has told us whether there will be a passenger rail link to services to the north-west. It is precisely because we have a Bill in isolation which deals simply and solely with the station, not with the routes to or from that station, that we cannot consider many of the ramifications of the Bill in relation to services to and from the station. That creates an enormous difficulty when we try to address the plans and transport issues properly.
The private Bill procedure—and we know from our debates only two weeks ago about the inadequacies of that procedure—is not appropriate for dealing with detailed planning issues, which should be the subject of a public local inquiry. The private Bill procedure is not a sensible way of dealing with major, strategic national issues about the use and spread of the economic benefits that the Channel tunnel can bring. All those issues are contained within the Bill, yet we are being asked to discuss them without prior consideration by the Select Committee on Transport, without any specific planning approach from British Rail, the Department of Transport or this House. That is not a sensible way to reach such a major decision.
620
The private Bill procedure used in this instance pays little respect to the rights of those who want to object to the proposals in the Bill. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House claimed that private Bills were even-handed between objectors and promoters. They are not.
For example, one has to look only at the treatment meted out to English Heritage, which rightly said that it had an interest in clause 19. Clause 19 will affect several listed buildings within the purview of the site that British Rail seeks to contain within the work proposed in the Bill. Several buildings will be affected, such as a grade 2 listed building at No. 7 Caledonian road, dating from 1875, a grade 2 listed building, "The Bell" public house, at 259 Pentonville road and the Great Northern hotel, which is also a grade 2 listed building. All those buildings will go, yet English Heritage, which clearly has a valuable point of view on listed buildings, has not been allowed even to present a petition against the Bill. That is due wholly to the fact that the agents acting for British Rail sought to delete English Heritage from the list of petitioners against the Bill.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, until 50 years ago, there were only a mere handful of objections to locus standi? Within the past few weeks, British Rail has caught up the backlog of the past 50 years.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. British Rail's agents have objected to locus standi for well over 100 petitioners—I cannot remember the exact figure—including people and organisations from my own constituency and others such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who sought to put her own petition against the Bill. There is an organisation in my constituency called Crossfire—it has still to be considered by the Court of Referees so I shall not trespass on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by dwelling on it—which has the particular purpose of protecting the King's Cross area from unnecessary and unwanted development. It has been challenged by British Rail, although it has a strong case to make and important points to put.
When a number of petitioners, who were accepted as having a locus standi by the promoters of the Bill, gathered to meet last Friday with representatives of British Rail, they were given an extremely dusty reception. When, for example, they asked for copies of the presentations that British Rail would be making to the Bill—one would expect them, as petitioners, to have that right—they were told that they could not have them. They were told further that if they wanted such copies, they would have to come to Parliament and pay the normal charges for copying.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a document circulated by British Rail which I received this morning, as in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), there are many references to the high-speed link? Yet all the organisations that have been careful to present arguments about the high-speed link have been denied locus standi.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right: he identifies precisely the problem of dealing with a station apparently in complete isolation from any consideration of routes leading to it. That procedure is nonsense and it reveals the piecemeal way in which we are being asked to consider important issues. Over the past few months—and,

621
probably, in forthcoming months—we have heard of people whose livelihoods, properties, homes and area will be affected profoundly by the Bill, not being given a full democratic voice so that they can make objections and points about the Bill.
The Bill seeks to extinguish some reversionary rights in relation to parts of the land to the north of King's Cross, especially those possessed by the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The Bill seeks to extinguish those rights in relation to property development proposals that British Rail and the developers are seeking to implement by means of a Bill that should refer specifically to a Channel tunnel station. It is not sensible, fair or just to go about the process in such a way.
A number of proposals contained in the Bill relate to the overall Underground complex at King's Cross and contain some of the measures recommended in the Fennell report following the tragic fire one and a half years ago. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton made much of those provisions in the Bill. It is worth pointing out that virtually none of those works requires Bill procedures to be implemented. Most could be implemented simply by going through the normal planning procedures, but British Rail has chosen not to do so. To argue that those works should be a reason to pass the Bill would be disingenuous. The Bill is not needed to ensure that those works go ahead.
Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood from the Clerk of private Bills that private Bills could be used only for matters that could not be achieved in any other way. In view of what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has just said, can we be assured that every item in the Bill can be achieved only through this Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The vires of a Bill are tested by the Examiners, who go through it meticulously to ensure that it satisfies the requirements of the Standing Orders before it is presented to the House. The Bill has been dealt with by the Examiners, it is satisfactory and it contains nothing contrary to our Standing Orders that should inhibit our discussion of it.
Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Irrespective of the truth of your remarks about the Examiners, is it not a fact that, if a Committee finds that part of the works in the Bill could be achieved by other means, it is within the powers of that Committee to require the promoters to take that part from the text as a condition of passing the Bill? It has been known on rare occasions for a Committee not to pass a Bill at all, I believe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us take it one step at a time and dispose of Second Reading in one way or another first.
Mr. Smith: Following that extremely interesting and important exchange, I trust that if the Bill receives a Second Reading—unfortunate though that would be—the Committee might consider that point. The provision in the Bill for works to relieve congestion in the Underground booking hall at King's Cross—which we all know was the site of the fire in November 1987—fulfils recommendation 142 of the Fennell report. A private Bill is not required for those works to be proceeded with. Indeed, London Underground has been discussing with Camden council an application for planning permission for precisely those
622
works. It seems odd that London Underground should be applying for planning permission while at the same time joining British Rail in promoting the Bill.
I record my dismay at the way in which British Rail has constantly changed its mind—from one day to the next and from one issue to the next—in relation to King's Cross and all the works associated with it in the Bill. Some petitioners have at first been opposed as to locus standi but have subsequently been accepted. At one moment some of my hon. Friends have been told that passenger links with the north-west using rail lines linking the north-eastern and north-western lines may well be provided, while at the next British Rail is talking instead about a travelator running from King's Cross to Euston. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may well have something more to say about that.
It seems crazy that so-called direct routes to the north-west should involve someone getting off a train at King's Cross, coming up to a different level with his baggage and travelling half a mile underground on a travelator on to another station, another platform and another train. If British Rail thinks of that as a direct link to the north-west from the Channel tunnel, it ought to think again.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that British Rail has presented the direct link in the north, the north-west and the north-east in a different way, which has not involved any emphasis on travelators? It has implied that there will be through services.
Mr. Smith: That is so. British Rail has had a wonderful record of implying one thing to some hon. Members and another to other hon. Members during the preparation of the Bill. When I met British Rail officials last Friday, they told me that what they have in mind is a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. As far as I could divine, to all intents and purposes, that was the end of the story.
Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend have information to suggest that British Rail management will adopt a proposal similar to that for the so-called "Battersea Bullet"? Pictures at the windows give the impression that the train is moving at 150 miles an hour, although it is actually travelling at only 35 miles an hour. Does he think that British Rail has something similar in mind for the travelator?
Mr. Smith: I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend along that line. The difficulties of passenger transfer from a Channel tunnel train on to a completely different train starting from a different station are such that they must be obvious even to British Rail.
Mr. Dobson: Assuming that British Rail does not use the great circle route from King's Cross to Euston, the travelator will run entirely within my constituency. Did British Rail favour my hon. Friend with any indication of what route the travelator would take and whether it would be above or below ground?
Mr. Smith: The implication appeared to be that it would be below ground, but beyond that British Rail was not terribly forthcoming.
British Rail has changed its mind absolutely and completely about the choice of King's Cross in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St.

623
Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, when the Select Committee discussed the location of the station for the Channel tunnel at Waterloo, it asked British Rail whether alternative locations in London would be better or worse than Waterloo. British Rail was specifically asked about King's Cross. Its answer to the Select Committee in October 1986 was that King's Cross was an infinitely worse location than Waterloo; so bad was it that British Rail ruled it out completely.
Let me quote from page 1829 of the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill on 28 October 1986. Counsel for British Rail said:
"The principal reservation"
about King's Cross
"is traffic congestion—which, as I say, features very badly compared with Waterloo."
British Rail now tells us that King's Cross is the best thing since sliced bread, although two and a half years ago it argued that it was the worst option. But the only thing that has changed in the past two and a half years is that the traffic congestion at King's Cross has got worse.
Mr. Tony Banks: Did my hon. Friend raise that matter in any of his discussions with British Rail? If so, what was its response?
Mr. Smith: I have certainly made the point in my various discussions with British Rail, but I do not think that I have yet received a response on it.
I have three major reasons for opposing the Bill and asking the House to refuse to give it a Second Reading. The first is its impact on the local neighbourhood. It will cut a swathe across the south-western corner of my constituency. It will involve the compulsory purchase of 17 acres of property to the east and south-east of the station. It will involve the demolition of almost all the 150 buildings on that 17-acre site. It will mean diverting two of London's main traffic arteries and blocking many other roads. It will mean excavating a 40 ft pit across most of the site, for a period of two years at least.
Thousands of people live and work in the buildings to be destroyed: 329 people will lose their homes; 59 local shops will have to close; 130 other businesses will lose their premises; 2,114 local jobs will go; the main Euston road post office will disappear.
In addition, the measure represents the destruction of a thriving local community. Over the past 20 years, much effort by local councils and by local people in particular has been put into the building up of a good, thriving, lively neighbourhood at King's Cross. Houses have been rehabilitated. The neighbourhood has been re-established as a wonderful place for people to live and be in. That will be destroyed by the proposals. Nothing can take that from the defects of the Bill.
Meanwhile, British Rail, which is proposing to gobble up 17 acres—with all the homes, jobs and people who will be affected—owns 125 acres to the north-east of King's Cross station. If it insists on using King's Cross as a location for its second Channel tunnel station, why on earth does it not use the land that it already owns rather than seek compulsory purchase of land and destroy jobs and homes in the process? Perhaps I can provide an answer on behalf of the promoter of the Bill. The reason is that British Rail does not want in any way to endanger the profit which it expects to make from the development of
624
railway lands to the north of King's Cross station. If it builds the new station there, that is precisely what will happen.
The second reason for opposing the Bill is that it will have a severe impact on congestion in the surrounding area. King's Cross is already one of the most congested locations in London, both above and below ground. We know that from the tragic events of November 1987. British Rail now proposes to put 15 million extra passengers a year through King's Cross. Quite simply, King's Cross cannot cope with that extra load. However the works are done and however much the underground booking hall is extended, King's Cross will not cope with the extra traffic, either above or below ground. Above-ground conditions will be particularly severe.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, parroting what British Rail has frequently said about the Bill, said that the philosophy behind the King's Cross location is its easy access by public transport. That may be the philosophy behind the choice of King's Cross, but it will not necessarily be the event—the actuality—of the location of the second Channel tunnel station. People will want to be met by coaches or by relatives. People will go to ground level and take taxis. People will arrive by train from Paris and get off at King's Cross. They will not go to the Underground but will get transport at road level. They will go into an already fiercely congested area.
Perhaps I can put it no better than the local chief superintendent of police put it in his annual report only a month or so ago. On policing in the King's Cross area, he wrote:
"Plans for Kings Cross Railway Station will make it a major travel centre for Europe. This has major traffic implications for the area, even now the roads are unable to cope with the volume of traffic."
They are not my words. They are the words of the Metropolitan police. The police have identified what British Rail has ignored and what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton has sought to obfuscate—the severe traffic implications of what is being proposed for King's Cross and the surrounding area.
The third reason for opposing the Bill is that it represents a total absence of proper national strategic planning of the benefits from the Channel tunnel. As a nation, we should seriously think about how best to maximise the economic benefits that can be derived from the Channel tunnel and how to spread them as effectively as possible around the country. Putting services into King's Cross will not necessarily do that.
Let us carefully examine British Rail's claims about direct services to the north. In meetings that I and my colleagues have had with British Rail, it has said that, at most, it expects only a quarter of trains going into King's Cross to go northward from King's Cross. In other words, a small minority of trains will provide direct services to the north. Most trains will terminate at King's Cross. Indeed, British Rail gave that fact away in its information pack on the Channel tunnel rail link. Its leaflet called "Rail Services" refers to journey times for passengers and a new terminus at King's Cross—not a station: a terminus. A terminus is where trains stop and go no further. That is what British Rail has in mind for the great majority of traffic from the Channel tunnel to King's Cross.
All the talk about the possibility of direct links is a smokescreen to disguise the fact that the overwhelming majority of traffic will go to King's Cross and end there.

625
That is not a recipe for spreading the geographic and economic benefits of the Channel tunnel. It is a recipe for funnelling everything into the centre of London. That principle is behind British Rail's policy on the Bill.
Frankly, British Rail and hon. Members who argue its case about routes from King's Cross to the north have been disingenuous in their claims about the benefit of King's Cross as a location. The Bill represents no strategic thinking or planning. It will bring few long-term benefits, cause large-scale traffic chaos in much of north and north-east London, and involve the massive destruction of a thriving local neighbourhood. The Bill should be refuted.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This evening President Ortega of Nicaragua is addressing a rally at Central hall, which is not far from the House. A provocative counter-demonstration in support of the Contras is taking place not feet from the entrance to the hall and is resulting in a breach of public order. Two people have already been arrested. I have approached the police and asked them why it has been allowed, and they have said that they have given permission. I ask you, as Deputy Speaker, to make inquiries.
Students were not allowed to demonstrate within a mile of Parliament. Given that this demonstration is resulting in a breach of the peace and is an insult to a democratically elected President, I ask you to use your authority and ask for an explanation from the Metropolitan police.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair has no authority to intervene in a matter for which it has no responsibility.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have jurisdiction when an hon. Member approaches the police and asks them to explain to demonstrators that they are in breach of the law, is refused access to the demonstrators, and is told by Inspector Grigg that he does not intend to tell them that they are in breach of the law? Surely you can do something when the upholders of the law are refusing to allow lawmakers access to people to tell them that they are breaking the law. Surely that is a serious breach.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It might be a breach, but it has nothing to do with the Chair of the House of Commons.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends are saying that the demonstration is not in breach of any statute but in breach of the Sessional Orders which we pass at the beginning of each Session of Parliament. There have been precedents. In the past, Mr. Speaker has undertaken to examine whether the Sessional Orders were being breached. Therefore, in those circumstances, it might be helpful if you could ask whether some Officers of the House might do that. The demonstration outside Central hall, Westminster could be breaching those Sessional Orders.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a reasonable request, and without any commitment, I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
7.49 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I rise briefly to join Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends in opposing the Bill. I do so for two reasons. First, I cannot see the area of King's Cross having the capacity to cope with the massive amount of traffic and congestion that would result from a terminus being built there. Secondly, if the legislation is not right in the first place, I see the battle of King's Cross today being the battle of Kent tomorrow and indeed the battle of the rest of the country as the 1990s progress towards the millennium.
On the first point, it seems most odd that a national transport institution such as British Rail is commencing a route from Europe into the capital of this country, starting at both ends, but being relatively unconcerned about what happens in the middle. Clearly, we need a national statement by British Rail about its policy for the country as a whole. I do not like and have not liked for some years the piecemeal approach that British Rail has developed towards access to and from Europe. I liken it to the dance of Salome and the seven veils. The unfortunate thing is that when we think that we are getting to veil No. 7 and are about to see the body beautiful, another seven veils are added. We are no nearer to the truth as we perceive it than we were when we started with the whole vexed question of this policy.
As an hon. Member representing north-west Kent, I can say that we were more than a little dismayed when the individuals and organisations along the route in Kent made applications to the Court of Referees for leave to appear before the appropriate Committee of this House to have their objections heard, but were turned down. We felt that that was wrong because we have as much interest in this legislation as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and his hon. Friends who represent central London. In that sense, unusual and unlikely as it is, we are at one in our opposition to this proposition.
I shall develop my argument on British Rail's piecemeal approach for a moment longer, because the House will understand that this is the first opportunity that I have had, as a Kentish Member, of getting my views on record about British Rail's proposals for the high-speed link and the consequential effect on London termini. The House will remember that some years ago we were told by British Rail that the Channel tunnel would have no impact on the need for extra rail capacity and that the existing network services could cope. Yet, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has said, today we are debating a proposition which, in the eyes of British Rail, was apparently wrong some time previously.
I should like to speak on two matters—the two instructions that have been chosen by Mr. Speaker for debate and the instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which refers to Stratford East. I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in saying that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is absolutely right that British Rail should give
"adequate consideration to other possible locations at King's Cross and the proposal for a station at Stratford East".
I have total support for that as it would give the appropriate Committee of this House the opportunity to consider alternatives to the proposed route two for the high-speed rail link route through Kent. As the House

627
knows, my views on the high-speed link are quite simple. If British Rail wishes to place a high-speed route through my constituency, it can do so on one condition—that it goes underground. Under the terms of the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, British Rail could also consider TALIS—the Thames alternative link international system—which commands a great deal of support in north-west Kent. Therefore, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
The thing that worries me about this whole vexed matter is the impact on the environment. Any hon. Member whose constituency is affected by King's Cross, or by the preferred route 2 cannot but give statement to and evidence of the great distress and anxiety that the proposal has caused and will cause to many thousands of individuals, communities, places of work and to those who, like me, seek to protect the green belt, such as we have left, in north-west Kent.
Further, I am especially concerned that the promoter of the Bill did not refer in some detail to the impact of clause 19. It is an interesting clause and the precedents for the inclusion of such a clause in a private Bill are limited. The implications of clause 19 are that this private Bill will seek to override the general public law on the protection of listed buildings. If clause 19 were enacted, a precedent would have been created for the inclusion of similar clauses in other legislation from British Rail or from any other institution seeking to undertake a project of a similar scale and type.
We in Kent have suffered for some years from a tremendous demand for housing and urban development. We have a whole series of historic places from Folkestone to Bexley that would be severely affected and would have no protection under general law if a clause 19-type provision were included in the Channel tunnel high-speed link legislation as, if and when it comes forward. That is why I register my great concern about clause 19, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will reply to that point later.
Ultimately, we must consider ourselves in the traditional role of the House—as the guardians of the rights of the individual. The old-age pensioner in King's Cross and in Dartford has the same right to have his or her views made known about the legislation as do the large institutions of both corporate and local variety. If we cannot air our views in this way and make it easier for an individual to have his or her views made known, what are we doing in our business as legislators?
I commend the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and other hon. Members, and welcome entirely the stance that he has taken because—I repeat—the battle of King's Cross today is the battle of north Kent and of Kent as a whole tomorrow.
7.58 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has allowed himself to be used in such a way by British Rail. I understand—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that British Rail had some difficulty in finding someone to promote the Bill. Clearly, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr.
628
McNair-Wilson), whom one would normally expect to promote such a Bill, is not in his place. The hon. Member for Acton will learn in due course that he has been handed a parliamentary equivalent of the black spot from blind Pugh. If the Bill is ever passed, I suspect that when the hon. Gentleman passes through Kent he will need to go with a large entourage of bodyguards around him—because, as we know, he has a rather large body—plus a white stick.
I have a variety of reasons for opposing the Second Reading of the King's Cross Railway Bill. First, it is outrageous that such a vital strategic decision will be made without proper consideration of the transport needs of London or the south-east. There has been so meaningful consultation over the King's Cross proposal. British Rail has acted like a bunch of bully boys. it has been arrogant, high-handed and, what is even worse, it is now trying to use this place as a parliamentary rubber stamp for its proposals. We should not allow ourselves to be used in that fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the private Bill procedure was not designed for such complex strategic decision making.
I was one of the members of the Joint Committee that considered the private Bill procedure. The Committee was concerned that normal planning arrangements were being increasingly by passed through the private Bill procedure. One of our recommendations—on which I hope the House will eventually make a decision—was that environmental impact studies should accompany such proposals. At least we would then know that there had been some attempt to consider the planning and environmental impact implications of proposals contained in private Bills. I heard the Prime Minister in all her ignorance state recently that the private Bill procedure gave adequate opportunities for objectors to put their case. Clearly, she has never sat on a Committee considering a private Bill. If she had, she would never have made such an ill-informed comment.
Secondly, we have already heard that British Rail is knocking out as many of the potential petitions as it possibly can by challenging the locus standi of objectors. Indeed, more objections concerning locus standi have been raised by British Rail on this Bill than in the previous 50 years. That is no way to convince people that one is prepared to consult and to have people examine one's proposals fairly and impartially. Instead, British Rail is using a technical device to ensure that the voice of opposition is never heard during the private Bill Committee stage. The private Bill procedure is entirely inadequate as a substitute for properly convened public inquiries. I believe, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there should be a proper public inquiry before the Bill is allowed to proceed.
Thirdly, the King's Cross Railway Bill is about the location of a terminal. However, Parliament is being asked to take that decision before it has been asked to determine the route of the rail link from the tunnel to the new second terminal. It is a classic case of putting the carriages before the engine. If that is the way in which British Rail runs a transport undertaking, it comes as little surprise that so many of its trains have recently been crashing into the buffers.
What confidence can one have in an organisation such as British Rail, which finds itself seeking permission to construct a second terminal before the first one is built? What level of ineptitude has led British Rail to

629
miscalculate passenger demand completely so soon after the decision to make Waterloo the site of the London terminal? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury correctly reminded us, it was during the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill that British Rail's so-called experts specifically ruled out King's Cross as a site. What has changed in the couple of years that have since passed? All we know is that there is far more traffic congestion and chaos on the roads of London, and certainly around King's Cross, than there was two and a half years ago.
I believe that it is a monumental miscalculation that British Rail is now bringing this new proposal before us. It is breathtaking stupidity. I do not see how the House can have any confidence or trust in British Rail's ability to get its next decision right, when one considers how badly it got its first decision wrong. How can we take its arguments seriously any more?
All British Rail's decision-making processes have been carried out behind a veil of secrecy. It has shown sheer insensitivity about the needs, wishes and fears of people both in London and Kent, which is no way to treat people. If this terminal is supposed to be for the people of London, of the south-east and of the country as a whole, they should be consulted about decisions that are taken by grey, faceless bureaucrats in the British Rail headquarters.
Fourthly, there is a planning vacuum in the south-east. When I visited British Rail and stressed the strategic implications of the decision enshrined within the Bill, it told me that its only concern was running a transport undertaking. It was not its function or responsibility to act as the strategic transport planning authority for London. I accepted what it said. The Secretary of State for Transport came to see the London group of Members of Parliament. He probably thought it was safer to be with us at that time than being chased by people about a variety of matters affecting aircraft safety. When asked a direct question, he told our group that he was not responsible for strategic transport planning in London. The House is entitled to know who is. I still cannot believe that someone as young as the Minister for Public Transport is in a position of such authority in the Government. He is the young Lochinvar of the Conservative party. He is perhaps the person to whom we should turn and ask about the transport strategic decision-making processes in London.
Mr. Spearing: I was so intrigued by the admission of a planning vacuum by the Secretary of State for Transport, who everyone assumed had that responsibility, that I ventured a written question to him. To my surprise, the answer that came back was that the statutory responsibility for co-ordinating public transport in London was with London Regional Transport. My only comment on that was, as in most other things, that that did not give me any confidence.
Mr. Banks: One can hardly be surprised at that. We find it difficult to accept that a vacuum should be allowed to exist. In many ways one can believe that it is a positive dereliction of duty towards the people of London and the south-east that no one is prepared to take responsibility for strategic decisions that will affect the country for decades to come. No other European country would go about things in such a half-cocked way as this Government, aided and abetted by British Rail—or perhaps it is the other way round.
630
The suggestion that all strategic matters can be dealt with by a private Bill Committee of four Members of Parliament would be laughable if it were not so serious and far-reaching. We are told that we are now the substitute planning inquiry. That is fine, because Members of Parliament like to think that they have a little power. The Prime Minister does not often give us very much. Therefore, this is the beginning of the process. This is the Second Reading, but where is everyone? They will all troop in later. I shall look very carefully to see whether the Prime Minister once again turns up in her curlers and slippers, as she did for one of the earlier private Bills. I shall also be interested to see whether the payroll vote has been whipped in.
Mr. Snape: It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend said that it was not the Prime Minister, but that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was probably going off to another disco, with his shirt slashed to his very ample waist, revealing a very hirsute chest. It was the sort of sight to turn a strong stomach. It was not the sort of thing that a clean-living Member of Parliament such as myself would wish to be associated with.
Although those hon. Members will not have been involved in the discussion, they will vote. Planning matters cannot be left to that level of uncertainty and that lack of involvement.
We are told that the private Bill procedure is an adequate replacement for planning procedure. The Prime Minister herself said that. It is not so. Four Members will be asked to sit on that Private Bill Committee, and they will not even have an interest in the area. One of the requirements to sit on an opposed Bill Committee is that one does not have a constituency interest. Often, that means that there is no interest. The Members just want to get out of the Committee as fast as possible. Such an important decision should not be left in the hands of people who will not want the opportunity with which we shall present them.
I want the House to reject the Bill so that British Rail can give proper consideration to the other options for the location of the terminal. If the House will not do that, I hope that it will at least pass to the Committee the instruction on the Order Paper which will require British Rail to look seriously at the options. So far, it has just put up a facade of consultation and consideration. We want it to consider the options properly, particularly the option cif Stratford in the borough of Newham.
My council has been campaigning consistently for the terminal to be located at Stratford in the east end, in my constituency. We want it there for a variety of reasons. There is adequate British Rail-owned land there already. There will be no need to destroy listed buildings and community facilities, as will happen if the terminal is located at King's Cross. Stratford has a railway tradition going back to the 19th century. There is adequate transport infrastructure and more is planned, for which we are grateful. The development at Stratford will give a further boost to the economic development of the east end as a whole. Of great significance, the London borough of Newham entirely supports the location of the terminal in our area. That support is also given by the surrounding boroughs.
Mr. Leighton: Has my hon. Friend noticed the remarkable fact that everywhere else—for example in Kent and most other places in Britain—we have the "not in my back yard" factor? The London borough of Newham is saying, "Please put this in our back yard." Is that not completely unprecedented? Surely it must weigh with British Rail when an area will give a welcome to the development and not the opposition that one sees everywhere else.
Mr. Banks: A new acronym is born, IOBY—in our back yard. We are saying, "Yes, we are prepared to have the development, and the surrounding local authorities will co-operate with the Government and British Rail in locating it." It is not often that the young Minister gets such an offer, yet he is turning his face against it. It is a great pity for London, the south-east and the country as a whole.
I realise that several of my hon. Friends have expressed a clear preference for King's Cross over Stratford. I hope that they will take time to read the report commissioned by Newham from Colin Buchanan and Partners, which puts the case for Stratford rather than King's Cross. It is described as the case the nation must hear. I shall ensure that the Minister gets a copy and I hope that he will study it [Interruption.] The Minister has a copy. Excellent. That means that the communications system has been working well. I hope that he has read the report. If he has, I am sure that it will convince him that the decision that he will be allowed to make to locate the second terminal at King's Cross is wrong and that he should quickly change his position.
It is not surprising that since British Rail made the proposal, it cannot reject the notion that others will also explore the idea of a Channel tunnel terminal, in this case at Stratford. This is especially true since it appears that the comparative studies originally considered necessary by British Rail have not been carried out other than in a very cursory manner indeed. The Buchanan study does not claim to have done justice to all the technical matters involved in making a proper comparison between King's Cross and Stratford, but it has carried the analysis far enough to show that a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel to a new terminal at Stratford will be far cheaper than British Rail's proposal involving King's Cross. The capital cost saving would probably be in the range of £500 million to £1,100 million. Partly because of the imaginative cross-rail proposal which has emerged from the central London rail study since the decision on King's Cross was taken, the time disadvantage of Stratford compared with King's Cross for a journey from Paris to central London probably averages no more than five minutes, while in certain key areas, notably Canary wharf and the Liverpool street area, journey times via Stratford would be much quicker.
Stratford is capable of providing the onward rail connections for through services with journey times not noticeably different from those achievable via King's Cross. Where through services are not operated because the demand does not justify them, an interchange is necessary in London. Travel times would also be very close. The Stratford site will shortly be connected directly to the M11 and could easily accommodate the car and coach parking essential to a major international transport terminal.
632
King's Cross, by contrast, lies at one of the most persistently congested points of London's road network—the worst point at which to locate a major traffic generator. Because Stratford is near the Temple Mills mashalling yards and because it can have new carriage cleansing yards adjacent to it, it would permit the operation of a much tidier, more self-contained and cost-effective rail operation, with freight services able to make use of the full length of the high-speed line wherever traffic paths can be made available between passenger services.
A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford would be of a quality, spaciousness and greenness which, no matter how clever the architecture, can never be matched underground at King's Cross in the midst of one of the most tangled and congested rail complexes in the world. A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford offers the opportunity to achieve a major inner-city redevelopment of the type known to be favoured by Ministers which could accord with the key planning objectives recently set out by the Secretary of State for the Environment. A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford accords with the local plan for the area, whereas one at King's Cross contradicts the recently adopted local plan of Camden.
There are many good reasons why the House, if it will not throw out the Bill, should at least take the opportunity through the private Bill procedure to consider in some depth what is clearly a viable alternative that would meet the needs of London, the fears of the people of Kent and provide the sort of facility that the east end desperately needs. It would enable us to serve transport in London and the country as a whole in a way that would not cause the damage and distress in King's Cross that the Bill proposes.
For all those reasons I ask the House, even if it is minded to give the Bill a Second Reading—I hope that there are enough of us to vote it down—at least to accept the instruction that stands in my name and those of hon. Members on both sides, so that proper consideration can be given to the viable alternative of Stratford.
8.18 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this point to set out the Government's position on the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on an extremely lucid and helpful explanation of the Bill.
Perhaps I should begin by emphasising that the Bill does not deal with the development of the King's Cross railway land. That is entirely a planning matter which is the subject of planning applications currently lodged with the London borough of Camden. The Bill deals with proposed operational railway and underground works, the need for which is independent of the development of that site. Some part of that need is urgent. The relevance of the wider planning issue to the Bill is that British Rail and London Regional Transport either seek powers now for their railway development or lose the chance of effective railway development at King's Cross if the rest of the development then proceeds. Once any development is completed, it will be impossibly expensive to carry out extensive railway projects on the scale envisaged.
There are three distinct elements in the Bill: first, BR works to permit commuter services which operate into King's Cross to use St. Pancras; secondly, BR works to

633
construct a low-level station for the use of rail services, whether domestic or international; and thirdly, LRT works to improve London Underground facilities.
There are several ways in which the Bill affects my Department. As British Rail's sponsoring Department, we must be satisfied that the powers being sought are appropriate, that safety considerations are adequately addressed and that the projects are likely to meet the appropriate investment rules. The same is true in respect of the works proposed by London Regional Transport for London Underground in which important and specific safety considerations arise from the Fennell report and less specific safety considerations also arise that relate to the relief of congestion through the enlargement of an Underground station.
We should also be concerned with the broad impact of the proposals taken together, on the existing transport system, including the road system around the King's Cross area. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton described British Rail's plan, first to link St. Pancras to the east coast main line to relieve congestion at King's Cross and secondly, to provide for the enhancement of the Thameslink service through King's Cross by using the low level station. British Rail believes that both measures are required—the first more urgently than the second—to cope with the growth in the use of those services. If Parliament grants the powers, the board will, in due course, submit the investment proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his approval. If they offer good value for money, I am sure that he will be pleased to approve them.
In principle, what is proposed in the Bill looks sensible and we support British Rail in seeking the powers at this stage. This is a further step in British Rail's plans to create a modern railway to carry traffic to and through London.
Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend explain something about which I have never been entirely clear? If somebody were able to present a plan that provided better value for money than British Rail's plan, would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to direct British Rail either to give over its plan or to think it out again?
Mr. Portillo: We do not yet know whether British Rail proposes to bring forward an investment case of its own. I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has wider implications encompassing the Channel link through Kent. We do not yet know if British Rail intends to bring forward an investment proposal of its own or will seek Government approval through a private sector arrangement. All I can say is that the discussions that British Rail will have with consortia will be closely followed with intense interest by the Government.
The Government are currently considering the board's commercial case for King's Cross as a second international railway station in London in preference to other possible locations. I hope that we shall have reached a conclusion on the matter by the time that the Government submit their report on the Bill to the Select Committee.
The commercial case for the low-level station may involve us in considering the traffic, both domestic and international, that would be made possible by a new rail link between London and the Channel tunnel. The reasons for the timing of the Bill have been explained and I can assure the House that granting British Rail the powers to
634
build this station does not prejudge the case for a new link or its route. The House would be agreeing only to British Rail's proposition that if there is to be a second central London international station at King's Cross it should be constructed in the manner indicated.
In the short term at least, international traffic could reach King's Cross by the Thameslink line rather than a new line from Kent. In addition to the proposals in the Bill to connect the low-level station to both the east coast and midland main lines, I am told that it would be comparatively straightforward to connect the west coast main line, and that this is being considered by British Rail.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister asked his officials to study the alternatives of TAUS and Stratford? If so, what reports have they made to him?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. I have explained that we have not yet approved the British Rail investment case for King's Cross, and we look forward to looking at it. If an adequate case for King's Cross is put forward by British Rail, we shall be pleased to approve it.
Ms. Harriet Harman: The Minister referred to an adequate case being put forward by British Rail for King's Cross. Has he had the opportunity to see the documents that convinced British Railways Board members that King's Cross was the right location? The reasons for its decision would have been based on comparisons between alternative termini, costings, engineering plans, environmental impact. If the Minister has seen the documents on which British Rail board members based their decision, will he place them in the House of Commons Library so that hon. Members who have to make a decision on the same issues at least have the benefit of that information?
Mr. Portillo: I return to the point that I made a few moments ago, that we have not yet considered a formal case for King's Cross.
Ms. Harman: What are we here for?
Mr. Portillo: I have tried to explain to the House that the Bill has come to the House before the decision on the investment case has been taken. That should not be a surprise to hon. Members because that point has been made a number of times.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving, way at this stage because this is what Parliament is all about. The Minister has made some important statements. Is he saying that the Government agree with this location in principle but are reserving their case on the commercial element? The Minister nods. Does he remember that not long ago the Prime Minister, at that very seat, said that the private Bill procedure was as good as, and better than, any planning inquiry? The Minister now says that the Government, without any planning inquiry, and before the Committee has met and any debate concluded, have decided in principle that, given the commercial case, King's Cross is the right location. Is that not an example of the elective dictatorship at work?
Mr. Portillo: About halfway through the hon. Gentleman's intervention I entirely lost him. Let me try to explain the position. British Rail is charged with running commercial rail services between cities and internationally.

635
There is to be no subsidy of the rail services provided by British Rail, either between cities or internationally, and if there is to be no subsidy from taxpayers' money there should be no interference from the Government in the choice of location for its terminals made by British Rail because that is a commercial matter. However, if the terminal to be is to be financed by British Rail—and as BR is a nationalised industry—obviously the case for its investment in one station rather than another must be convincingly made to the Government. The decision has not yet been taken but that does not make it impossible for the House to consider the case for the King's Cross Railways Bill now before us.
Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that I was a little too quick in making my point. The Minister has confirmed that the Government, subject to a commercial arrangement, are in favour of the location. As I explained earlier, the Prime Minister claimed that a Committee to consider a Bill was as good as any public inquiry, but an inquiry has not taken place. By giving the Bill its Second Reading tonight and giving the Government's imprimatur to the location, is not the case prejudiced because it has not been scrutinised properly? That is so unless the promoter is going to accept the location, which he has not yet said.
Mr. Portillo: From such a renowned constitutionalist, I find what the hon. Gentleman said very surprising. We are saying that British Rail is right in principle to bring forward the Bill. I intend to explain that the Government believe that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, that the Committee has an extremely important job in considering all the relevant matters and that there are some points on which the Government have doubts. If I manage to make progress with my speech I shall reach those points.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill will be widely welcomed in Leicestershire, particularly the new link from the midland main line? However, there is concern that this will not be electrified and, therefore, the link will not be used to its full extent.
Mr. Portillo: It has been suggested to me that the Bill would be welcomed in Leicestershire and also that the midland main line should be electrified. However, British Rail must consider whether it wishes to make an investment case for that. My hon. Friend should also consider that electrification is one of only a number of ways in which services on lines can be improved.
Mr. Dobson: It was so long ago that I hope I am not misquoting the Minister, but I believe that he said that he understood from British Rail that it would be possible to link the works at King's Cross to the west coast main line. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was told by British Rail as recently as Friday that it is contemplating doing that by way of a travelator more than a quarter of a mile long. When was the Minister told by British Rail that it could make a link to the west coast main line? Does British Rail envisage doing that by means of a travelator or a railway line?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me with tolerable accuracy. I said:
636
"I am told that it would be comparatively straightforward to connect the west coast main line, and that this is being considered by BR."
I referred to a railway line, not a travelator.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister has given way generously, and I appreciate that. He said that no taxpayers' money was to be used and that the funds would come from British Rail. To what extent will property development desiderata play a part in this? Documents that I have seen suggest that British Rail wants the terminus at King's Cross because it is superior for property development and British Rail will make a lot of money out of it. That, rather than traffic considerations, weighs heavily with British Rail.
Mr. Portillo: Both property development and traffic considerations could be important. The Government will look for an economic case to be made for the station; it will include station property and traffic. I have not yet seen that case, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the proportions between the two will he.
Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister saying that, when considering the proposals for the railway works at King's Cross, the Government will consider property speculation on the 125 acres of surplus railway land to the north of King's Cross?
Mr. Portillo: No, I was saying that the question whether the low-level station is viable has to do with the traffic that might be generated by it and the property development that might be associated with it. As I said in my opening paragraph, the railway lands around King's Cross are outwith this measure and will be considered through the normal processes by the submission of a planning application to the London borough of Camden.
I turn now to the implications of the Bill's proposals for the Underground. The Bill will allow the present Underground ticket hall to be enlarged, and a new one to be constructed to serve the deep tube lines and BR's Thameslink and channel tunnel traffic. It also provides for a series of new subways between the various platforms, ticket halls and the surface. These works are needed to implement one of the recommendations of the Fennell investigation into the King's Cross fire. Mr. Fennell recommended that London Underground should build a direct subway link between the deep tube lines and the Metropolitan and Circle lines, or provide alternative satisfactory means of relieving the serious congestion. He considered that an important recommendation.
Although the detailed appraisal of this aspect of the proposals has yet to be completed and presented to the Department, the Government support these improvements in principle. I am sure that the House will be pleased to support measures designed to relieve congestion in one of the busiest stations in the London Underground system—
Mr. Dobson: Have British Rail or London Underground—or the two between them—calculated the net effect of the improvements set against the additional 60,000 passengers that they contemplate? It sounds to me possible that the place will be more overcrowded as a result of the proposals.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman asks me a question which is better directed to the promoters of the Bill. It would probably be more appropriately asked in Committee than on Second Reading.
As far as the impact of the proposals on the road network is concerned, we are discussing the technical issues with British Rail, the King's Cross developers and the London boroughs of Camden and Islington with a view to identifying the separate and combined effects of the development and the railway works. Our first priority will be to judge the overall effect of all the proposals on the trunk roads for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the highway authority, and on the designated roads for which he is the approving authority for borough proposals. We also need to consider the wider implications for other borough roads in the area.
When taking these discussions forward, we shall be able to draw in the first instance on traffic information in the document supporting the developers' planning application to the London borough of Camden and in the environmental impact assessment which BR will submit in relation to its proposals.
Our main aim will be to safeguard the efficient movement of traffic on the strategic network of trunk and designated roads in the area around King's Cross.
Ms. Harman: Does the Minister think it right that the House should be asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill when British Rail has not yet allowed hon. Members sight of, or published, the environmental impact assessment of these proposals? Should we not have those plans before we are asked to vote?
Mr. Portillo: That is another question for the promoters, not for me. The Bill must pass through several stages, as the hon. Lady knows, and the environmental impact assessment will be made available during the passage of the Bill. It concerns the Government, too, as I shall explain in a moment.
Some improvements will be possible with the introduction of better traffic management techniques, but if the additional traffic demand is heavy, changes to the trunk road, particularly at the junction of Euston road with Pentonville road and York way, might be necessary to accommodate it. A former GLC scheme for this junction, the St. Chad's place scheme, has been safeguarded. We are reviewing it to see whether it will be adequate, given the proposed developments. We would expect to submit a progress report on the road issues to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton referred to an environmental impact assessment which British Rail has commissioned in connection with the railway works in the Bill. I understand that it will be available well before the Select Committee begins considering petitions against the Bill. The Government welcome the fact that British Rail has chosen to carry out this assessment. Although the European Community directive on environmental impact assessment does not, strictly speaking, apply to works authorised by a private Bill, BR has chosen to operate within the spirit of the directive and of the recent Joint Committee report on private Bill procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was present for parts of the debate on 20 April on private Bill procedure, and although I was abroad on official business that day, I have read Hansard with great interest. The
638
Government are considering how best to proceed in the light of the Joint Committee's report and of the debate, but the House will recognise that for the time being there is no alternative to the private Bill procedure. Speaking for myself, I cannot regard it as bad that a project of this size and importance for the national railway system should be considered by Parliament, rather than exclusively by a local planning inspector and Ministers of whatever party. Doubts in that regard were expressed by hon. Members on both sides and, as I have said, we are carefully considering all the issues raised by the report and the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised just over three weeks ago—
Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the Minister accept that no one on the Opposition Benches argues that either Parliament or the planning procedure should be used? We are arguing for both—for a proper planning inquiry and then parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady makes her point, but I am not sure whether going through the processes twice, with all the delay that that involves, is in the best interests of anyone, including the objectors. As it happens, in this case we are dealing with two closely related matters—the railway works in the Bill and the broader development in the King's Cross area. On the latter, there will be normal planning procedures involving the submission of an application to the London borough of Camden. To that extent, the hon. Lady may be contented, because there will be both a planning procedure and a private Bill procedure.
The works proposed will affect several listed buildings in the area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned about clause 19, the effect of which is to disapply the special controls that normally apply to listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. My right hon. Friend accepts that exceptional circumstances may justify overriding the normal statutory conservation safeguards, but he does not want that done at the expense of proper debate, for purposes not directly and specifically connected with British Rail's operational needs. He is currently in discussion with the promoters to establish the precise effect of their proposals on the listed buildings and conservation areas and will be considering the position further after consulting English Heritage. I understand that, apart from the two main line stations, which are listed grade I, there are seven buildings or structures listed grade II which are potentially affected by British Rail's plans, and two conservation areas.
My right hon. Friend had previously attached some weight to the fact that English Heritage was petitioning against the clause, since that would, in his view, have ensured that when the Bill was in Committee, Parliament would have the benefit of its independent and expert advice. In view of the decision by the Court of Referees to disallow English Heritage's petition, he will now be looking to the promoters to give satisfactory assurances—preferably by way of an additional clause in the Bill—that they will consult English Heritage; that they will give it adequate opportunities to record any buildings which have to be demolished; and that generally they will pay special regard to the desirability of preserving, so far as is practicable, the buildings and other features which give the

639
area its special interest and character. Subject to that, he will be considering whether to report on the clause, and in what terms.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is correct to remind the House that the Court of Referees did not accept the locus standi of English Heritage. That happened because British Rail challenged locus on the part of English Heritage, as it did on the part of a large number of other potential petitioners. What confidence can the House have that BR will give careful consideration to all the matters to which the Minister referred, given the way in which BR arrogantly and aggressively stopped people who were able to come before the Committee from appearing and giving the benefit of their advice?
Mr. Portillo: I am responsible neither for BR's action in challenging the locus standi of certain petitioners nor for the decisions of the Court of Referees. The Secretary of State for the Environment has responsibilities in those matters, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that the Government will look for assurances, preferably by way of an additional clause in the Bill, and I hope that that will be of comfort to him on that point, which clearly concerns him.
Ms. Harman: I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that BR behaved wrongly in objecting to the locus standi of English Heritage. Will he bear in mind that many other organisations and individuals petitioned against the Bill, including myself on behalf of my constituents, and were also steamrollered out by BR's objection to locus? Will he, in addition to taking up the case of English Heritage, consider the cases of all those who petitioned and whose petitions were disgracefully ruled out on the basis of that challenge?
Mr. Portillo: No. The hon. Lady wilfully misunderstands what I said. I do not criticise British Rail in the matter; I simply said that I had no responsibility for it. I do not see how BR could have been wrong to mount a challenge, the Court of Referees having found its challenge to be in order. These are matters for the Court of Referees, although the Secretary of State for the Environment has special responsibilities which he will discharge in the manner I described.
I have indicated support in principle for the Bill. It is of course for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. There remain against the Bill a great many petitions which raise important matters and which reflect genuine and widely felt concern about the proposals. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and will have the advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed, in the usual way, to Committee for detailed consideration.
8.44 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: The confusion surrounding the Bill has been added to, rather than cleared away, by the Minister's contribution. The
640
newspapers tell us that the hon. Gentleman is the coming man of the Government. I have no wish to blight his future career, but I warn him that he must do better in future if he is to live up to the rave reviews that he has been receiving from the national press.
As my hon. Friends—and to be fair, some Conservative Members—have said, there is widespread unhappiness about the procedures that have been adopted towards the Bill. The Minister agreed that hon. Members in all parts of the House felt that the private Bill procedure was being abused from the point of view of this project. As for the management of British Rail, there is, to put it at its mildest, widespread unhappiness in the House about the way in which it has conducted itself in the conflicting and contradictory stories that have eminated from that source.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) spoke of the project being a partnership between the public and private sector. We would have no objection to that, if it were true. The problem with the Bill, as the Minister pointed out, is that the contribution from the private sector will be all-important because it will enable British Rail to meet the investment criteria laid down by the Government.
That being the problem, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that BR owned a considerable amount of land at King's Cross which, in his opinion—and he should know, because he is the constituency Member—would provide an adequate site for a new railway station, if that were what BR was seeking. But that is not what is being sought by BR. It is seeking to maximise revenues on that valuable inner-city site to meet the investment criteria laid down by the Government, which will allow BR to build an underground station catering supposedly for international trade, supposedly to all parts of the country.
In explaining why BR had opted for that course, the hon. Member for Acton conceded that, when BR gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Channel tunnel, its forecast for cross-Channel passenger traffic was too low. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) might have something to say privately to him about that because, when giving evidence to that Committee, BR made a number of statements which it subsequently contradicted. It told the Committee that there was no need for a high-speed rail link and that the Waterloo terminal would be sufficient for international passengers until the end of the century.
BR then changed its mind and said that its forecasts were too low. BR was cross-examined on a number of occasions when giving evidence to the Select Committee about the accuracy of its forecasts, but was adamant at that time that they were correct. What has changed since? Has BR been reading the Eurotunnel prospectus, which said that its forecasts were too low? Has BR been talking to its counterparts in SNCF, who felt at that time that the forecasts where too low? Or could it be that, to minimise opposition to the original Bill, BR deliberately pitched its forecasts at a low level, simply to get the Bill through the House? I do not know the answer, and the hon. Member who is acting for the promoters shows no signs of telling us. It would not be unusual, to say the least, for the British Rail management to mislead on these issues.
Mr. Rowe: If we are charitable enough to assume that British Rail was incompetent, rather than conspiratorial, in its forecasting, does that not bear out the criticism of

641
many of us about the fact that BR has remained adamantly opposed to accepting advice on any aspect of its great Euro-rail investment from any other source, be it the Swiss, the French or the Germans, even though the figures on which BR is now proceeding appear to be much closer to those of the French?
Mr. Snape: That is a valid question, and the hon. Gentleman should address it to the hon. Member for Acton who is acting on behalf of the promoters. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that it has been incompetence on the part of the BR management. Not that I question its incompetence; I worked for it for too long to believe that it is anything other than incompetent when it comes to making decisions of this kind. But we should not ignore the fact that, as well as incompetence, the BR management over the years has been adept at what has been called obfuscation about statistics relating to its business.
I am speaking of the railway management that, following the 1955 modernisation plan, decided to operate a multiplicity of different types of diesel locomotives. These were all stabled next to steam locomotives, with the inevitable maintenance problems that were bound to arise. It is the management that gave us massive marshalling yards for wagonload traffic from one end of Britain to another, only entirely to drop wagonload traffic thereafter. It is the management that tells us that the best way forward for the operation of passenger services in and around the capital is one-person operation locomotives and unmanned stations. That system gives the malicious an opportunity to board a train at a station which has no staff, to mug the passengers while the train is proceeding under the control of one person and to leave the train at another unmanned station.
Apart from the moral considerations of a management that approaches its duty in that way, that is not an economical way of running a train service. It is possible for people to board trains at unmanned stations, to ride on OPO trains and to alight from those trains at unmanned stations. The motivation for some individuals to pay their fare is perhaps somewhat lacking.
I am talking of the management that comes forward with a fresh barrage of statistics and supposed facts to convince us that the Bill is worthy of support.
A thread that has united us all, apart from the promoters and the Minister for Public Transport, whose somewhat confused contribution suggested that he is a man with a future behind him, is a mistrust of British Rail's management. That includes its intentions for King's Cross, and especially the way in which that station is to be operated for through international services to other parts of Britain.
Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to take the conspiratorial notion a stage further. Does he agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed with the Bill without having the Government's views made known to us on other routes? Does he agree also that it would be wrong for us to adjudicate on the Bill without knowing anything of British Rail's intention for freight and freight clients? I speak as a man with only a past to which he can look forward.
Mr. Snape: I am sure that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is not true. I am sure that he is not seeking my sympathy, and he will not get it.
642
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know. British Rail has confused itself, so God knows what it does to the rest of us. The latest epistle from British Rail—I refer to its press release of Saturday 6 May—refers to freight using the existing north London line. It is especially vague about through passenger services to the north of England, especially to the north-west and to the part of the country which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have the honour to represent in the west midlands. I know that that bothers you considerably, as it bothers me.
British Rail's current view—I stress "current"—is that it intends to cater for railway passengers from other parts of the country. If we are to accept that, the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) should be given a little more consideration by the hon. Member for Acton. My hon. Friend referred to passengers to and from south Wales. He spoke also of a letter from the Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales—I have a copy of it in front of me—on the future of services into Paddington and connections with Channel tunnel services to any part of the continent or with through services, if they are to operate, that will use the King's Cross terminal.
The lack of strategic planning is central to the flaws in British Rail's planning generally. There is a proposal for a dedicated rail link between Paddington and Heathrow that will be operated by the British Airports Authority. That does not give much comfort to those who wish to join the cross-Channel services. Sir Norman Payne and his BAA colleagues are obsessed with sites for Tie Rack, Sock Shop and even a chain called Knicker Box Ltd. It is hard to imagine that they will be too concerned about the impact of that dedicated rail line on a travel pattern that will involve the Channel tunnel project.
The central London rail study was referred to a few days ago by the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that there are plans for a surface link—perhaps it will be a sub-surface link, but these matters confuse me—between Paddington and Liverpool Street. There is not much sign there of any coherent strategic plan for knitting these projects into the cross-Channel tunnel services, which are supposedly to pass through the new King's Cross international station.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the lack of coherent planning of underground railways in London. He has spoken also of connections to the London-north-western main line. From Stratford to Willesden there is an electrified railway line which projects onwards to Acton, Central and Acton, South. The direct route from Stratford to the south Wales main line would join the Great Western main line at Acton main line station. Is that not ironic?
Mr. Snape: That is an historic irony. My personal view is, that the great advantage of long-distance railway services is that they run from city centre to city centre. That has always been perceived as the great advantage of the railways when they are in competition with aviation, for example. By the very nature of things, airports are well away from the centres of towns or cities that they are supposed to serve.
We are told that the advantage of the King's Cross project for the rest of the country will be the through services, if they come to exist. Let us move away from

643
south Wales and the west, with the inadequacies of the proposed provision of services for those areas, and consider Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Carlisle, and the west coast main line. It has always been our understanding that British Rail intended to build and electrify a spur that would join the east coast main line with the west coast main line. It would allow through continental train services to pass via the new King's Cross international station to the parts of the country which I have just mentioned.
As long ago as 10 January, the chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Robert Reid, wrote to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on the spur project. I came upon the letter because it was sent to the West Midlands regional forum, on which I have the honour to serve as chairman of the west midlands group of Labour Members. In that respect, the letter is in the public domain. In his letter, Sir Robert referred to through passenger trains to the west coast main line and stated:
"The current Parliamentary Bill"—
it was not current at the time but never mind, that was just one inaccuracy—
"concerned with the redevelopment proposals for King's Cross and St. Pancras does contain provision for a sub-surface station. If King's Cross were to be selected as the site for the second London station for International Passenger Trains, this facility would be used for that purpose."
It would be difficult to imagine any other purpose for the facility.
That being so, I am not sure what Sir Robert was getting at when he wrote that part of his letter. He added:
"So far as International Passenger Services beyond London are concerned, if the business demand does support the investment in the trains, it would be the Board's intention to provide rail connections from the sub-surface station at King's Cross to the East and West Coast Main Lines."
That proposal appears straightforward, and it was one accepted by the West Midlands regional forum, which included little me, at its face value—given that it was dated 10 January 1989.
Subsequently, two of my colleagues wrote to the Department of Transport about that matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) received a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport, while my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) unaccountably received a reply from the Minister for Public Transport. Evidently, Privy Councillors write only to Privy Councillors, which is something else that I did not know. Personally, I do not mind receiving a letter from the Minister, provided that it is clearer than his speech this evening.
Remarkably, the letter dated 3 April from the Secretary of State and that dated 7 April from the Minister of State both include the following paragraph:
"I understand that British Rail's choice of Kings Cross as a second London terminal for Channel Tunnel passenger trains is not intended to prejudice the possibility of through passenger trains to and from the West Midlands. BR are considering whether to seek further powers for a new direct link from Kings Cross to the West Coast Main Line, or whether to retain their original plan of routing such trains via the West London Line."
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) there are now three options.
Mr. Spearing: The third being White City?
Mr. Snape: I shall come to that possibility in a moment.
We are now presented with a choice of three different routes. There might be an electrified spur joining the east coast and west coast main line, or we may have to settle for the revamped west London line. Given the likely congestion that would occur once full services got under way, we in the west midlands do not find that a particularly attractive prospect. The third alternative may be ceremonially unveiled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—a travelator connecting King's Cross with Euston station. It is conceivable that, in the timetable for that brave new world after 1993, there may be through trains indicated between Birmingham and Brussels, Paris, or any of the other exotic locations about which I know very little.
Mr. John Prescott: By train, anyway.
Mr. Snape: And he is on my side!
How will those new services be advertised if a travelator is used to connect the new King's Cross with the old—or not so old, because it was built only 20 years ago—Euston station? Will advertisements show an escalator, or will they show a man—and given the sexist nature of the British Railways Board, presumably it will be a man—bent double with suitcases and buckets and spades, stepping on to an escalator connecting the two stations? Will we be told what connecting services will be provided for the rest of the country?
In view of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Acton—I must not be hypocritical, because he did his best—it appears that no one knows what connecting services will be provided, and no one can say whether through services to other parts of the country will be provided.
I draw the Minister's attention the instruction in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras and for Islington, South and Finsbury, which refers to the need for the Committee on the Bill to
"take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals."
I do not know why the Minister did not refer to that instruction during the course of his very unenlightening speech. He may argue that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 includes an instruction to the British Railways Board, introduced by the Opposition and accepted by the Government, that such a report be published by the end of this year. That instruction does not contradict section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, but reinforces it.
Mr. Portillo: Not so. It would duplicate it.
Mr. Snape: The Minister says, sotto voce, "Not so," that such an instruction would duplicate the Act. It would certainly clarify it. Such an instruction would at least force British Rail to come clean about their intentions and would give right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to make a proper and valid judgment about whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed. The Minister says that such matters should be discussed in Committee. Tonight, we are talking about—in railway parlance, appropriately enough—giving the green light in principle to a Bill that will supposedly bring

645
about through services to all parts of the country, yet if the Bill receives a Second Reading, the House has no way of knowing whether that happy situation will come about.
Mr. Rowe: I very strongly support the hon. Gentleman's comments. If we wait until the end of the year before we receive any coherent plan from British Rail about the proposed connections—assuming that such a thing is possible—the Bill will pass through the House of Commons before we have an opportunity to debate those proposals.
Mr. Snape: The central point of the argument is that the House is expected to pass the Bill without knowing British Rail's intentions. I have worked for British Rail all my working life, until I came here for a break. Putting aside my insults about British Rail management, I hope never to work for British Rail again. Under the new rules and regulations, I would probably be fired anyway for saying what I have tonight. It is unacceptable to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House not to receive assurances from British Rail on which we can rely. So far, we have witnessed only a series of contradictory statements, assertions and press releases.
In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke about road congestion in and around St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. Any right hon. or hon. Member who spends any time travelling around this city will know just how congested is the Marylebone road in the vicinity of those two stations—and the likely impossibility of the extra traffic likely to be generated by the scheme having free passage up and down Marylebone road and Euston road in particular and in the side streets also.
The press release from British Rail embargoed to 6 May, to which I have already referred, makes the specific statement:
"The new proposals are designed to meet all these demands"—
that is, the architectural and other demands—
"in a building of outstanding architectural merit"—
I presume that British Rail means the new concrete awning that is to be erected—
"at the same time as improving access to and from road transport."
The House has been told by the Minister that no roads surveys have yet been completed. He said, reasonably and accurately enough, that the impact of the proposals on road access and the road network has still to be measured, yet British Rail's press release presumes that its proposals will be beneficial.
Mention has been made of the proposed new terminal's advantages for the midland main line. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Acton would explain what advantages there will be for those living along the route of the midland main line. If it is not intended to electrify that line, then, given the loading gauge problems of the so-called wide lines, through trains from European cities and from cities along the midland main line are unlikely, to say the least. I have said that through trains between European cities and the western main line are at best doubtful under the somewhat nebulous proposals we have just heard about.
The support given to the Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House is, I think, reasonable enough, provided that British Rail comes clean and tells us what it is about. I fear that, if it fails to do so—if, as it appears, it has
646
briefed the hon. Member for Acton insufficiently, it will fail to do so—we shall be asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that asks more questions than it answers.
I hope that at least some of those answers will be provided before midnight. If they are not, I know that many of my hon. Friends will—to say the least—have considerable misgivings about the Bill's veracity as it relates to the future of the rail network, not only in London but in Britain as a whole.
9.10 pm
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: We have all been much entertained by the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but I am not sure that much light has been cast on the subject. I sometimes suspect that the hon. Gentleman's intention is more to confuse than to clarify. In his remarks about the management of British Rail—after all, they went back 30 years—I heard one of the most convincing arguments for BR's privatisation that I have ever heard on the Floor of the House, although it may have been advanced unwittingly and interpreted in a different context from that intended by the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to speak only briefly, on a fairly narrow aspect of the Bill. It is clear that views are divided between two camps. One view—which I deeply respect, but do not intend to comment on because I have not the necessary knowledge—concerns the immediate geographical and environmental impact of the proposals, and I understand the strength of feeling behind those arguments. Other hon. Members, among whom I count myself, are more concerned about the wider strategic implications, a concern which underlined the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister.
I am anxious that the benefits of the development of the Channel tunnel and all that goes with it should extend beyond London, and we should ask whether that development will enable international trains to run beyond London. Let me say unashamedly that my interests extend to the east coast main line link to the north-east of England and, of course, to Scotland. But it is because I believe that the benefits should extend as widely as possible that I am attracted—in principle—to the Bill: having listened carefully to what was said earlier about Stratford, I believe that the choice of King's Cross improves the chances of establishing good through links from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and to Scotland.
Mr. Chris Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked British Rail how many through trains will go through King's Cross and up to Scotland? The answer, I am afraid, is, not very many.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. As I have said, I support the Bill in principle; obviously there is to be a second terminal in London, and I want to ensure that it is in the position most likely to facilitate the extension of links with the north and Scotland. In my judgment the Bill achieves that. I entirely agree, however, that we want rather more assurances than we have received.
I believe that the chosen site is better than others in London, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman anticipated me, because the question that he has asked is the next point in the notes that I have before me. Ii probably cannot be answered fully tonight, but, if my

647
support for the Bill—in principle—is to continue, I should like to know how many through trains will run to the north and Scotland. There has been a certain amount of vagueness about that.
My next point is also a general one. I shall not go into detail, as much has been said on the subject this evening, but it is equally important that there are adequate cross-London links to provide a means of connection. A good deal of long-distance passenger traffic will not use the Channel link for the whole distance. People will want to catch connecting trains to places other than the north of England and Scotland.
I understand that the total cost will be some £574 million, a huge amount for a single project, and I hope that that will not be at the expense of other British Rail programmes. There is already considerable competition for British Rail's investment. I should like to mention two aspects, one connected directly with the cross-Channel link.
If the cross-Channel link is to be successful and areas distant from the Channel are to benefit, we must ensure the development of an efficient freight terminal in Scotland. I do not want that to be put at risk by developments elsewhere. At Coatbridge, a site that I believe is being discussed as a possible major freight terminal in Scotland, we already have a freightliner terminal. Nevertheless, I believe that a great deal more study is needed, and I hope that none of that or any subsequent investment will be put in jeopardy.
Extra investment will certainly be needed. If there is a new terminal it will have to be connected, at some expense, with the trunk road and motorway systems. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Minister—and I hope that British Rail will pay attention—that proper consideration should be given to refrigeration facilities at the terminals. The link will provide Scotland with a great opportunity, given our exports of high-quality food. There must be proper handling facilities, but as far as I know no such facilities are being considered at present.
My final point also concerns investment. The east coast route is being electrified and will shortly be completed as far as Edinburgh, but that leaves a huge gap from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. There is no doubt that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe: it is a very busy city and has one of the lowest unemployment levels in Scotland. The oil industry is picking up, and it will continue for many years to come.
Many of us are worried by British Rail's rejection—so far—of proposals to continue the electrification beyond Edinburgh. The investment south of London and in the Channel tunnel will be very much bigger than that north of Edinburgh. It is galling to us that additional investment should be denied to us when so much money is being spent elsewhere. Scotland believes that the links with the Channel tunnel will provide opportunities for us, but we shall be able to take advantage of them only if the links are provided in the most effective way. One of the effective ways is to have a terminal at King's Cross. However, it must not be at the expense of investment elsewhere—in particular at the expense of the two areas that I have mentioned.
9.20 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: In case anybody should be confused, let me say right at the outset that I am utterly opposed to the King's Cross Railways Bill. It directly affects my constituency and my constituents. I oppose it, too, for reasons connected with London as a whole and for national reasons.
I object most strongly to the fact that this most important transport development, which is of national strategic importance, is to be decided by means of the private Bill procedure. No other democracy in the world has anything like the private Bill procedure. It is a means whereby well-off and powerful organisations get Parliament to set them above the law of the land. In a sense, it is statutory endorsement of not obeying the law.
A major decision such as this, which will directly affect the route of the lines from the Channel tunnel to London, and possibily the lines carrying traffic beyond London, should be determined by a private Bill promoted by British Rail. It was quite clear from the few meetings that I had with British Rail about the Channel tunnel that it was incapable of organising a conspiracy; it did not have the faintest idea what it intended to do. That has become dramatically obvious, as the debate has continued, from its conflicting promises and assertions.
It is improper for a decision of this importance to be taken by a railway operating company, whether it be publicly or privately owned. That decision should be taken by the Government. God knows, this Government are happy to poke their noses into lots of things. I do not know why they are unwilling to take strategic decisions of this kind, which affect my constituency and Kent.
We need a thoroughgoing public inquiry into the proposition and into all the links proposed by British Rail. We should not proceed by means of this hole-in-the-corner set-up, known as the private Bill procedure. British Rail has used salami tactics rather than the dance of the seven veils tactics, suggested by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
When British Rail first said that it intended to introduce a King's Cross Railways Bill, it said that it had nothing to do with the Channel tunnel. After the Bill was introduced, after all the rowing in Kent and after the line that it finally decided that it favoured ended up—for some extraordinary reason—at King's Cross, British Rail finally had to admit that the King's Cross Railways Bill had something to do with the Channel tunnel. Everybody had known that all along, but—lyingly—British Rail had denied it. British Rail used the fact that it is not directly connected with the Channel tunnel—so it says—to challenge objections from those who will be affected by the line to King's Cross. It is preposterous that British Rail has been permitted to proceed in this way.
British Rail has told me and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that in the second Bill which is to be introduced it proposes to facilitate further works all the way through Kent and south-east London that will affect other land and that will lead to other purchases in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
However, British Rail is not prepared to tell us what works it intends to carry out in our constituencies. Even

649
this Bill does not include proper coverage of British Rail's proposals for King's Cross, let alone anywhere else. It is a preposterous approach.
The background to British Rail's approach to King's Cross-St. Pancras—that vast complex—is that 125 acres of land are surplus to railway requirements. That land is owned by British Rail or its friends—associated, or previously associated, organisations. [Interruption.] Yes, British Rail still has some friends, but not very many in my area.
During the time that I have been a Member of Parliament—and before that when I was on the local council—I have run all sorts of advice services; I have received representations from people who wanted land on which to build houses. I remind the House that 7,000 to 8,000 families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in central London and that there are 15,000 homeless families in central London. People have told me that they would like somewhere to live. Others have said that they would like more schools, and bigger schools. Children and young people have told me that they would like to have a decent athletics track in central London. Other people have said that they would like bigger clinics or another park. In all the years that I have tried to represent the area, no person has ever come to me and said, "I want an office block."
However, British Rail proposes to devote most of the surplus 125 acres to office development that nobody wants, other than an organisation whose real name ought to be Inter-Galactic Property Speculation plc, which has linked itself to British Rail with a view to making a bomb out of it and damn anyone who lives in the area and damn anyone who has got any needs in the area.
The whole object of British Rail's approach to King's Cross is to maintain as much as possible of the 125 acres of property speculation land sacrosanct and safe from any demands that may be made on it. Not content with having 125 acres for that purpose, the Bill would allow British Rail to buy another 17 acres and knock down what is on most of that land; then it would have another 17 acres for more property speculation. That is one of the motives for those proposals, and is one reason why we should not support them.
Mr. Rowe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Confederation of British Industry has estimated that if all the office accommodation that British Rail is hoping to build on those acres is built, the effect will be to over-provide for the expected need for office space in London by nearly 5 per cent.
Mr Dobson: As my constituency contains State house, Centre Point, Euston tower and God knows where, I am quite prepared to believe that there will be a surplus of office accommodation, which we are pretty used to in my area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Bill's proposals will result in 326 people losing their homes. We have enough homeless people in my area already without adding another 326. Some 59 shops and 130 small businesses will go and over 2,000 local jobs will be lost.
The purpose of the Bill is not to allow British Rail to build a wonderful station that will be a credit to Britain and will make people travelling through the Channel tunnel to London say, "What a great place London is."
650
The purpose is to allow British Rail to build a gigantic dump of a cavern underneath the existing main line station and call it the "Euro-station".
I believe that British Rail's proposals will be dangerous. Firefighters, who have a little direct experience of King's Cross—certainly more than anyone at British Rail—believe that the new complex will be even more dangerous than the current one. It will lead to increased overcrowding. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the Bill does not contain a single proposal for improving the shifting of passengers to and from the King's Cross-St. Pancras complex. Some improvement in the layout of the stations may be made, but British Rail is not proposing an additional tube line or extra tube trains, and I do not believe all the garbage about improved bus services.
The object of the proposed digging at King's Cross is to preserve intact surplus railway land for speculative development, which is the wrong approach. Although there are some relatively prosperous people in my constituency, as there are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the people living in the areas bordering King's Cross and St. Pancras are not prosperous. They already live in an area which is full of stinking fumes and much traffic noise. It is not a pleasant place to live, and British Rail's proposals will make it infinitely more unpleasant, especially while the works are going on.
Of all the proposals that affect my constituency, the one that most galls me and most typifies the cavalier attitude of British Rail is the one to destroy the Camley street nature park next to Regent's canal. The land next to he canal used to be derelict, but was transformed by the joint efforts of the Greater London council, Camden council and the London Wildlife Trust. It has a lake, study centre, birds, fish, frogs and other amphibians. It has much shrubbery and is attended by thousands of children. It is used by local schools and respected by local children. Nowhere else in the area has no vandalism, damage, graffiti or fighting. It offers the local children something that is unobtainable anywhere else in central London. It is treasured by them because it is a treasure, but British Rail wants to smash it. We often accuse young people of mindless vandalism, but British Rail's proposals are precision vandalism. It is locating the line through the nature park not because it is convenient for the railway but because it is built on land that British Rail does not own, and therefore will not prejudice the land that it intends for speculative office development.
The only reason why the Camley street nature park is to be destroyed by British Rail is to maintain intact the land it wants for its rotten, stinking, lousy, speculative office development. I do not want to hear claptrap suggesting that it is necessary to use that land, or that the park will be restored later in some grand form. We all know that we can place no value on British Rail's estimates, but its best estimate is that there will be no Camley street replacement for five years. That is one primary school lifetime for children in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Teachers and volunteers have worked to provide the nature park, yet British Rail is prepared to destroy the park because it suits it and saves it a bit of money.
I will now move away from the narrow, parochial interests that I am proud to represent when dealing with Camley street. Let us look at the proposed station. Will it

651
be a satisfactory development? The King's Cross-St. Pancras complex is already the biggest transport interchange in Britain. It has two main line stations and the Thameslink line and, as if that was not enough, it has the Metropolitan, Circle, Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines. Although it is a vast complex, it is most unsatisfactory, as its users know. Every working day, about 270,000 people use the complex. The Bill proposes to add between 40,000 and 60,000 extra people to that complex from the Underground station every working day. The proposals will add to the number of users, but will not increase by an iota the capacity of the existing system to get those people away from the place to which the Euro-trains have brought them.
I speak as an open and dedicated advocate of the Channel tunnel. I have always believed that it was a good idea and should be rail based. It will be good for the country and good for the railway system, but it is crucial that it must not stop in London. I agree wholly with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who says that it is necessary that the links go to the north, the midlands, Scotland, the west, the south-west and Wales. It is crucial that good services are provided linking the Channel tunnel with all those places. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve that. The present proposals do not have the capacity to do what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
When I heard what British Rail was saying to hon. Members from the midlands, north and Scotland about its commitment to through connections to those parts, I drafted what I regarded as a not unreasonable instruction to the Committee. I said that the Committee should
"take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals."
I got in touch with the agents for the promoters, who duly got in touch with their principals—if that word, spelt in another way, can be attributed to British Rail. I asked whether they would be prepared to accept the instruction, which, after all, only instructs the Committee to check that British Rail can do what it is telling hon. Members from outside London it will do. The instruction should have been acceptable, but British Rail said that it could not accept it.
I raised the matter with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who referred to it today. He took the matter up with British Rail and was instructed by BR —if that is how we should describe the relationship—that it still would not accept the instruction. I hope that hon. Members who represent seats in the midlands, the north or Scotland will join us in voting for the instruction to make British Rail do what it says it will do, however they vote on the Bill itself.
Mr. Tredinnick: The House will know that I represent a midlands constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that schedule 1 to the Bill—containing works 01 and 02, which I understand provide for a link between the midlands main line and the new international terminal—does not, in fact, guarantee that service? My firm understanding is that they would provide that service.
Mr. Dobson: I am not a railway engineer, although some of those who have produced loony projections that they have gone back on after a couple of years have been railway engineers, so perhaps it is not such a disadvantage.
I believe that, in the end, the proposals will result in a bottleneck rather than a way through because they are not adequate to the task. But I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point specifically, except to say that unless the midland main line is electrified I cannot envisage any possibility of British Rail laying on through trains from Milan or wherever to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield and I do not think that it has any plans to electrify the line at the moment. I cannot imagine that the trains will change locomotives at King's Cross, as that would be even more complicated than the present proposals.
Some of my hon. Friends—I imagine that this has also happened to Conservative Members from the north-west —have been told all sorts of wondrous stories about through connections. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) outlined how the proposals have changed, but none of the changes has been greater than that discovered by my hon. Friend the Memberfor Islington, South and Finsbury when he met the management of British Rail as recently as last Friday. My hon. Friend discovered that the through connection to the west midlands involved a travelator—I suppose that we all have a rough idea of what that might mean—from King's Cross to Euston station. That is the through connection that British Rail is contemplating for the benefit of those who live in the north-west.
I do not know where the travelator will run. It cannot run under Euston road because the Metropolitan and Circle lines run there. There are some fairly big things under St. Pancras station, which just happens to be between King's Cross and Euston. I know for a fact that the British library goes down six storeys below ground level. It will be a fairly deep travelator that gets under that. It is stupid, and entirely typical of British Rail's attitude to the proposal, that it should propose a travelator when it has not thought for 10 seconds about what route it would take.
My suggested instruction to the Committee refers to freight. Are we to have freight on the travelator as well —containers, followed by people with luggage? That is a preposterous idea. British Rail should be ashamed of itself for putting it forward.
Ms. Harman: Perhaps my hon. Friend might enlighten the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Will refrigerated freight go along the travelator at the same time as everything else?
Mr. Dobson: That is probably going a bit too far. Perhaps some of the people who put forward loony propositions should be put in a refrigerator and allowed to cool down.
I understand, sympathise with and support the desire of hon. Members who represent the north of London for fast, reliable and frequent train connections to and from the Channel tunnel, but I do not believe that the Bill will make that possible. Because of my doubts, I hope that, at the very least, they will join Opposition Members in voting for the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I have put down. That

653
is the only way of ensuring that British Rail will demonstrate to the Committee that it will do what it claims it will do.
In summary, as presently put forward, the measure will do substantial damage to the people whom I was elected to represent. It will do substantial damage to the education of many primary school children whose parents my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I were elected to represent. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to think that that is not so. For their biology teaching and so on, primary schools in the area have become dependent on the Camley street nature park, which provides a facility that they cannot obtain elsewhere. Under this proposal, it will disappear for at least five years. The proposal will knock down houses, get rid of jobs, cause traffic congestion and produce a totally unsatisfactory underground welcome for anyone coming to London from abroad.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a good case for his constituents. What would he say to the constituents of hon. Members such as myself who represent provincial cities in the north, north-west and north-east? Would he say that the good intentions of British Rail can be tested only by the acceptance of his instruction and that, unless that instruction is accepted, the Bill should be opposed to make sure that, before it is represented to the House, the intention of the instruction is completely accepted by British Rail?
Mr. Dobson: That is certainly my position, but I would not wish to push it on those who are broadly sympathetic to the proposals.
British Rail's proposal will not provide a satisfactory station for anyone. It will lead to danger and overcrowding in the area and, as I have made clear, will not do the job that British Rail is telling people north of London that it will do in providing a proper through station that can provide a fast, frequent and reliable service to the Channel tunnel. If hon. Members feel obliged, for one reason or another, to vote for the Bill, I hope that they will join in supporting the instruction—I cannot imagine that anybody would have a logical objection to it—and at least ensure that British Rail does what it says it is attempting to do. However, as it has not done a lot of what it claims it intended to do in other aspects of the development, I do not think that we can take its word. That is why the instruction has been tabled. Anyone who takes seriously the undertakings that British Rail has been attempting to give will be able to make British Rail take those undertakings seriously only if the instruction is approved.
9.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is entirely appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who is so well-known for his attachment to that most private form of transport, the bicycle, should have been chosen to present the Bill on behalf of an organisation which, without his efforts—to some extent, I am glad to say, supported by me—would have totally eliminated all services for bicyclists.
It is important, especially as so many hon. Friends are not present tonight, to emphasise that I believe firmly in the crucial importance of spreading the benefits and the burdens of the Channel tunnel to all parts of the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members believe that to do so it is
654
essential that the Bill be enacted in the form in which it is presented tonight. However, as we have already heard, that is by no means a necessary condition, and I shall return to that point later.
The private Bill procedure, which we have already heard graphically described by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members as wholly inappropriate for work on this scale, is not something that we should apply to this proposition. The whole business of striking out people who have a perfectly valid interest in the Bill by challenging their locus standi has proved to be a negation of their opportunity to make their point at the place where it matters most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who is abroad on parliamentary business at the moment and therefore cannot be here, has asked me to emphasise on his behalf his clear understanding that his constituents feel that they have been considerably deprived of their opportunity to make their points in full by the deletion of their locus standi at the instance of British Rail.
Private Bills are a 19th century device invented to get railway Bills through quickly. It is ironic that in the 19th century the level of compensation was, in many ways, a great deal more satisfactory than anything on offer now. Again, I shall return to that later.
One of the worst features of British Rail being able to present a Bill in this way is that the Government and everyone else have no other source of advice. British Rail is the judge and jury in its own cause. When one writes as I have written to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport one is left with the clear impression that the only source of advice open to them comes from the very people whose action one is seeking to challenge. That is not the source of advice that anybody sensible would trust. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the readiness that they have shown to see hon. Members and to discuss such issues with them at frequent intervals.
One person whom I met today in connection with this issue had had an earlier meeting with British Rail cancelled because the British Rail people he was to meet had believed that there would be a railway strike. Not only can British Rail not tell passengers where and when trains will run, it cannot even get it right when they will not be running.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton and the Minister claim that the Bill does not pre-empt a decision on the route of the high-speed link. I have been to several meetings at which British Rail has claimed that various route proposals cannot be accepted because they do not go easily into the termini that British Rail has selected. I fear that even my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, with all his wordly wisdom, has been sucked into the slough of deception of which British Rail is such a consummate master.
If, however, it is the case that the choice of King's Cross does not pre-empt a decision on the high-speed link, I believe that we should take comfort from that. That would mean, contrary to the belief that has been engendered by British Rail's behaviour throughout the country and at King's Cross, that there is time to consider alternatives. I must say that I wish that I fully believed British Rail. However, having heard it so often dismiss the alternatives,

655
I fear that British Rail wants to get the terminus built now, partly to strengthen its resistance to any suggestion that there might be alternative routes to the high-speed link.
On the question of compensation, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton explained with the clarity and honesty for which he is so well known, that British Rail intends to fund this great development principally out of planning gain. Let us not make any mistake about the fact that most of the land from which it proposes to fund the development was acquired under earlier private railway legislation. That is a matter of profound principle not just for now, but for the future. If we become active in the Euro-railway link, there will be railways built hither and yonder around the United Kingdom.
If we seriously accept the proposition that British Rail be allowed to acquire more land than it needs to build a railway—so that at some unspecified time in the future it may sell it again for speculative gain—we are in danger of doing a serious injustice to those people who—not in this case, but in other cases—will be expropriated under compulsory purchase, and who will then see the gain that they might have been allowed to make on their land stripped from them by British Rail. It might then be a private company and it would be making a profit out of land to which it would have had no access had it not been for the private Bill giving it the compulsory purchase powers. That is a matter of great concern to every hon. Member representing Kent constituencies. It should be a matter of great concern to every hon. Member in the House.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman used the words "planning gain" concerning the speculative office development in which British Rail hopes to be involved at King's Cross. Normally, a planning gain is regarded as a gain for the local community. However, British Rail is after a speculative gain which for the local community would be a planning loss.
Mr. Rowe: That is an entirely valid comment. I have already said that the very things that British Rail is hoping to build may in some cases destroy, by their sheer quantity, the very market in which it hopes to make a profit. However, that is a matter for British Rail and not for me.
I have one question to ask concerning the King's Cross Railways Bill. I understand that one of the properties under discussion is a property called "The Lighthouse", which I believe it is no longer necessary for British Rail to use for railway purposes. I had always understood that the purpose of a private Bill was to give British Rail, or the railway company, the power to purchase those things without which it would not be possible to build a railway. If, therefore, British Rail does not need The Lighthouse, I hope that it will not seek to acquire it.
We are in the worst of all possible worlds. British Rail is not a private body so when it comes to offering compensation it is constrained by rules which have been devised by the Government. At the same time the Government are leaving it severely on its own, as if it were a private concern. It is important to remember that a great deal of public anxiety over Eurotunnel operations was assuaged because Eurotunnel could offer extremely generous compensation terms to the residents of three blighted villages. As a direct consequence, many of the
656
anxieties of those residents disappeared. British Rail is constrained to offer an ungenerous level of compensation. In Germany, 116 per cent. of the value of a property is offered. The people of King's Cross are entitled to press for that.
Will the new station be built to continental specifications? If the high-speed rail link were to come to King's Cross, would it be built to continental gauge? If so, will the other lines into King's Cross be adapted to this indispensable gauge? It is no use having through lines from John O'Groats to Brussels if they cannot carry the sort of coaches and continental gauge wagons that are needed.
Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend tell us how much extra it would cost to install the Berne gauge system? That may be of interest. Has he made any estimates?
Mr. Rowe: There are estimates. It is reasonably simple to install the Berne gauge when building a new line or facility. One assumes that a new passenger line would be built to that gauge. So far I have had no confirmation of that most important matter.
On the freight side, British Rail's pioneering, engineering wizardry will carry us into the 21st century, competing with all the established mainland continental European countries. It will achieve that with wagon wheels a foot smaller in diameter than those that run on continental railway lines. The fact that they will wear out lines more quickly than the bigger wheels may just possibly make them unacceptable to the French, Germans and Italians. We may discover that British Rail's freight plans result in the extraordinary performance of its small-wheeled wagons going only as far as the tunnel. The freight will then have to go on continental wagons because British Rail wagons will not be acceptable on the continent. That is not a prospect that I look forward to with any great pride.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton say that an environmental impact study is being carried out on the King's Cross plan, and the Minister confirmed that. Will my hon. Friend tell us by whom it is being carried out and under what instructions? The environmental impact study on the high-speed rail link through Kent is being carried out by Environmental Resources Ltd. which has been instructed by British Rail not to consider any modifications that are not acceptable to British Rail engineers. The idea that it is in any serious sense a fully objective environmental impact study falls at the first fence.
It is clear from the way in which the King's Cross proposal has been treated that remarkably little consideration is being shown to those who will lose either their homes or livelihoods.
The question of congestion has already been covered extremely well by many hon. Members in the debate. I believe that British Rail's statistics are not to be trusted. The Waterloo development, which will not be completed until 1996, will be over capacity by the year 2000, just four years later. My constituents are fed up to the back teeth with hearing British Rail swapping statistics. Every time it produces a statistic it comes back within a week, month or year to say that it was totally and absolutely wrong, and it was ridiculous to give one figure because it did not mean it but meant something else.
Already, 80 million passengers a year travel through King's Cross. How many more passengers a year is King's

657
Cross expected to take? The current proposition suggests that it will be a mere 15 million. When the die is cast, how can we be sure that the number will be only 15 million? Where will British Rail go next in order to cope with the expansion? I do not trust British Rail statistics.
In addition, I do not trust British Rail costings. How does it work out its sums? In this project the costs are estimated to be nearly £575 million. Admittedly, that is less than the sum that British Rail added to its estimate for a high-speed link through my constituency when it came under pressure one weekend. In that project, nobody believes that British Rail has correctly guessed the costs.
If British Rail continues with the high-speed rail link on the line that it has chosen, it will come to a sticky end, probably somewhere under the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). It will come back and say that it is terribly sorry but that it needs another £1 billion to finish the project because it is all much more difficult than it thought.
There is an alternative. The instruction to the Committee, to which I am pleased to have added my signature, states:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to satisfy themselves that British Rail gave adequate consideration to other possible locations at King's Cross and the proposal for a station at Stratford, East before adopting the plan covered by the Works contained in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill."
That is a terribly important instruction, whether one votes for or against this benighted Bill tonight. It is a fundamentally proper instruction to the Committee; there is an alternative. As we have already heard, a report has been completed by Colin Buchanan and Partners, which suggests that between £500 million and £1,100 million in savings could be made available if Stratford were chosen rather than King's Cross. It is extraordinary that we should have in front of us a project that may cause costs of up to £1,100 million more than an alternative that is rejected by almost all hon. Members who have spoken and everyone who lives in the locality, while the cheaper alternative is welcomed with open arms by the local authority in whose areas it falls and by the local community. If the House votes for a Bill that adds more than £1 billion to the cost in order to locate something where it is not wanted rather than where it is wanted, we need our heads examined.
10.8 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: It seems absolutely clear to me from the debate so far that the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) did no more than say what was on the face of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) spoke against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) explained why we should not be in favour of it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke against it, and we have just heard the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) do the same. All were wholly opposed to the Bill.
The only qualified support came from the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Even he was concerned, since it appears that flit, freight that he wants to go from his constituency to the continent might have to get off at Euston and get on a
658
travelator, and then get on at King's Cross before going to the coast, whereupon it will have to get off because the wheels are too small.
It is hard to tell whether the Minister spoke in favour of the Bill or against it. Pontius Pilate would not have been ashamed of the Minister's speech—an "it is nothing to do with me" speech. He is only the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill is only to do with the opportunities for freight to move from different parts of the country to Europe; of course that is nothing to do with him—he is only the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill is to do with passengers coming through from Europe to London and other parts of the country—the same applies. It is to do with traffic congestion in north London—that is nothing to do with him; he is only the Minister for Public Transport—
Mr. Cryer: Although the Minister may say that this has nothing to do with him, a suspiciously large number of Ministers and PPSs are here tonight. Perhaps he has arranged for a Whip to be put on the Bill so that the Government can get it through with the Mr. Cryer: Although the Minister may say that this has nothing to do with him, a suspiciously large number of Ministers and PPSs are here tonight. Perhaps he has arranged for a Whip to be put on the Bill so that the Government can get it through with the payroll vote. In that case, he has not told the House the whole truth.
Ms. Harman: I agree.
We understood exactly what the Minister was saying when he explained that this had nothing to do with the Government because they were not putting money into it. The Government are interested only in whether public money is put in. The strategic implications for regional policy mean nothing to the Government; nor do the transport issues, the planning issues or the blight issues.
The Government say they have gone green. The Minister told us that at some future date we shall have a half-baked environmental impact study from British Rail, but that in the meantime we might as well give the Bill a Second Reading. If that is the policy of a green Government, they must be green from mould, not from environmental concerns.
Parliament is being asked to decide on the siting of a terminal at King's Cross. We have not been allowed to see British Rail's costings or any of the evaluations of alternative terminals—or the environmental impact assessments or the engineers' reports, or anything else. This is the parliamentary equivalent of "pin the tail on the donkey". In fact, that game is a bit more scientific than what we are asked to do tonight—
Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend said that we have not been able to see British Rail's costings. We have the figures given in the statement in support of the Bill, which seem to show that the cost of the proposed works at the below-ground international station will be about £456 million. That is based on the proposals for a six-platform station, but we are now told informally by British Rail that it may run to eight, rather than six, platforms, so even the costings that we have must be questioned.
Ms. Harman: I agree, and the only information that BR has provided has been corrected or revised time and again, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent pointed out.
The British Railways Board believes that it is right for us to agree to site the terminal at King's Cross. I presume that, being members of the hoard, those concerned made an assessment between alternatives and that that involved challenging their officials on cost, environment, the wider

659
transport considerations, the number of homes that would be affected and what would happen in London, the rest of the south-east and elsewhere.
I also assume that before they made their decision, the members of the board were given some answers. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have been asking questions, but we have not received any answers. We asked those questions again tonight—of the hon. Member representing the promoters and of the Minister—yet we still do not have the answers. How can we agree even to do no more than rubber-stamp what British Railways Board members have decided when we do not have any of the information that they must have had before reaching their decision?
In any event, what is so secret about this information? It is not a question of national security. No criminal investigations are outstanding and must be protected. Nor is it a question of commercial confidentiality. Why cannot BR share with us the information on which its board members made their decision?
We are not receiving the facts because BR has become obsessively secret about it all. If its plans are so good and its thought processes correct, why can they not be shared with us? I suggest that it is all being kept secret because it is a botched job. Until BR is prepared to share with us its plans and let us subject them to independent scrutiny on behalf of our constituents who will be affected by those plans, we can look on what is proposed only as a back-of-an-envelope job.
When I have asked BR for this information at meetings I have been told that the whole issue must go before Parliament to be decided. I have replied, "What are you talking about? I am an MP. Don't tell me that it must go before Parliament and, because of that, I cannot see the information."
I trust that this debate will not draw to a close without the House being given an undertaking by the hon. Member for Acton, on behalf of the promoters, that hon. Members will be given this information. Indeed, I suggest that he arranges to place in the House of Commons Library all the information on which the British Railways Board made its decision.
The Minister did not explain what information he had. Indeed, he seemed to regard this lack of information as a matter of no concern to him. While he may not care to look at such documents if they are placed in the Library, many hon. Members who are concerned about the regional and economic implications of what is proposed will want to examine them, as will hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies and have spoken out against the Bill.
I hope that the Official Report of this debate will be circulated widely throughout my constituency and in the neighbouring marginal constituency of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Those whose lives, homes and businesses are already affected by what is proposed will not believe that following a debate such as we have had, the Bill received its Second Reading.
It is ludicrous for Transport Ministers to say, "We have no strategic involvement in what is proposed." My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) explained how the Secretary of State appeared before the London group of Labour Members and said,
660
after we had referred to him deferentially as the transport authority for London and the south-east, "I am not the transport authority for this area."
We asked him who had that responsibility, and he replied. "There is no such person." That might explain the mess in which we find ourselves. We told him that if his job description did not include being strategically responsible for transport in London and the south-east, he should start accepting that task in the absence of anybody else taking it on. Unfortunately, that seemed not to be part of his consideration or that of his colleagues.
It is ludicrous that the Government have accepted British Rail's proposal to separate discussion of the terminal from discussion about the route. How do we find ourselves in a position where we have a discussion about one terminal followed by a discussion about a second terminal? One end of the Channel tunnel is appearing at the coast, yet we are told that the discussion on the route must be an entirely separate matter.
I know that we are not allowed to use visual aids in the Chamber. Perhaps it will help hon. Members, however, if I explain the map that I have drawn on a piece of House of Commons blotting paper. Mark my words, it is more sophisticated than most of the plans that British Rail has produced so far. I hope that the House will take my document seriously. I have marked King's Cross, to the west of which is Waterloo. The Channel tunnel is, of course, at the coast. In the middle is Peckham. One terminal is planned at Waterloo, with a second terminal at King's Cross. British Rail says that Peckham is the only place for the sub-surface junction.
I asked British Rail whether there was not somewhere else to place the sub-surface junction that it plans for Peckham. The answer was no. The British Rail representatives added, "There is nowhere else where we can have the two lines from King's Cross and Waterloo converging." Why is it that I am told by British Rail that I have no right to have a say and that my constituents have no interest in the Bill? I am told that I have no locus standi. I submitted a parliamentary petition as I wished to represent the interests of my constituents in the course of an opposed Private Bill Committee. I am fearful of the consequences if the Bill receives a Second Reading and four hon. Members who know nothing about engineering are given the responsibility of reaching a decision on an incredibly important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the fact that the four hon. Members have no knowledge of engineering might be an advantage. I have heard of the tradition of amateurs in this country, but this is ridiculous.
I wanted the opportunity of appearing before the Committee and calling evidence on behalf of my constituents. I wanted the opportunity of saying, "This is the wrong place to site a terminal. Look at the effect that the siting will have on my constituents." That was my modest attempt to represent my constituents.
What does British Rail do? It does not say that my petition is in the wrong form. Instead, it says that I have no locus standi and no interest. That is a disgraceful way of shutting people out of the debate. My constituents are unable to sell their houses. In one instance, two of my constituents who want to separate are obliged to continue living in their house because they cannot sell it. Various personal difficulties are arising. However, British Rail tells me that I have no interest in the Bill.

661
It is entirely in British Rail's discretion to allow people to make representations to the Committee. Why is British Rail so afraid that the pillars of the temple will fall down if I have the opportunity to represent my constituents and bring evidence to the Committee to show how my constituents are likely to be affected? British Rail's reaction was narrow and mean-minded. In effect, it said, "Anybody who does nt agree with us should get out of the road. We do not want to hear you."
British Rail tried to tell me that it had no option but to rule out my petition. As I have said, it challenged my locus standi. Before I became a Member of this place I used to act as a parliamentary agent. Parliamentary agents advise those who seek to oppose or promote Bills and there is a discretion whether to challenge locus standi. It is shameful that British Rail has accepted the advice of parliamentary agents with the consequence that those who are profoundly affected are told, in effect, "You have no say. Shut up and keep out of it." As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, if the Bill is enacted and there is a terminal at Waterloo and another at King's Cross, he, the hon. Member for Dulwich and I will tell the House, "We do not want this route." British Rail will respond, "Sorry, it is too late. Given the location of the terminals, it is the only feasible route." We will not put up with that.
I give notice that if the Bill receives its Second Reading and goes to Committee, I shall petition on behalf of my constituents again, in another place. I hope that the hon. Member for Acton will give me an undertaking today that he will urge British Rail not to challenge my locus standi. There will be an Opposed Bill Committee in another place and if, because of British Rail's disgraceful behaviour, I have missed an opportunity to represent my constituents in this House, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that I shall have an opportunity to air my constituents' grievances in the Committee in another place.
British Rail has engaged in a deliberately misleading advertising campaign that has maximised opposition to the Bill. It has made people angry and furious as well as fearful. In an advertising campaign produced by Saatchi and Saatchi, British Rail used phrases such as "temporary closure" and "some disruption." It is describing the turning of Warwick gardens in Peckham into a giant construction slum of boarded-up houses, closed roads and businesses, and empty homes that will exist for at least 10 years.
If Warwick gardens is to be the location of the sub-surface junction, it will become the site of one of the most difficult and largest civil engineering projects in the whole of London. Warwick gardens will become a giant building site. The Government talk of inner-city regeneration, but they will blight that struggling inner-city area for 10 years. British Rail say that they will grass over the site and that everything will be as it was before, but people will no longer be living in the homes they have now, and the businesses that currently exist will no longer be there either. It will take decades for that area to pick itself up off the ground.
No one in Peckham was consulted before British Rail made its decision about the sub-surface junction. No one in Peckham wants that junction at Warwick gardens, yet British Rail is keeping me, as Peckham's Member of Parliament, out of the Committee and, by refusing to divulge any of the relevant papers, it is keeping all right hon. and hon. Members blindfolded. That is disgraceful, and British Rail should not be allowed to get away with it.
662
British Rail could have held a public inquiry, and I do not want to hear it said that such an inquiry would take too long. The Government are expert at guillotining everything, so it should not be beyond their wits to hold a public inquiry over a limited time span. Instead, they chose to push the Bill through the House. The only alternative is guerrilla warfare, and that is exactly what the Government will get.
Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that she is not being individually discriminated against by British Rail? A man living in a boat on the Regent's canal in my constituency had his locus standi challenged by British Rail—yet its proposals include draining the canal where his boat is moored, which will deprive him of his home.
Ms. Harman: Parliamentary agents are required to sign a certificate of respectability, as I had to do. I do not know how the lot who are advising British Rail managed to qualify for a certificate of respectability.
I turn to the question of how passengers and freight are to be transported from the Channel tunnel to different parts of London and to the rest of the country. No one wants a road. I do not want to hear it said that we are against railways. We do not want a road, and the people of south-east London do not want passengers and freight using existing roads because the Old Kent road is chock-a-block as it is.
Instead, we want the rail link to be contained in a tunnel below London. If a tunnel can be constructed for a distance of 22 miles under the sea, and if a further tunnel can be constructed under the Thames, there is no reason why the junction has to emerge in the middle of Peckham. It seems that they have merely flown over Peckham and then said, "It's a pity about Peckham." That is simply not good enough.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend mentioned contact with other regions. Those of us who represent northern constituencies are anxious that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, the Opposition instructions should be carried. But if the King's Cross solution is forced through—I say that advisedly, for that is what the Government will attempt to do—the problems will not be solved.
I have just received from British Rail a note of a meeting that it held with Members of both Houses, which says:
"The London Midland Region is well positioned for Channel Tunnel traffic as it already had a route around London and Willesden to Clapham via Kensington. This route is to be electrified to enable easy transfer."
If British Rail believes that that is the way to give the north and north-west the contact with Europe that they need, it is disgraceful and shows that BR still has not got it right in the Bill.
Ms. Harman: I urge all my hon. Friends from different regions to vote against Second Reading. I understand that we must vote on Second Reading before we vote on the instructions; if it were the other way round and we could vote on the instructions first, as a sort of amendment, we might be able to vote for the instructions and then, if they were passed, for Second Reading. I hope that those who, like me, are afraid that the instructions may not be passed and without them the whole exercise is a farce—will vote against Second Reading. I also hope that those who

663
support the Bill in principle, such as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, will in any event vote in favour of the instructions.
Let me ask a question that all my constituents, and those in neighbouring constituencies, are asking: who are the villains of the piece? British Rail stands accused of incompetence—there can be no doubt of that—but I think that the Government are the real villains. They have said that British Rail must make a profit, and everything else comes second—the regional implications, the implications for the environment and the implications for homes and traffic. British Rail must make a profit and account for it to the Government; as long as that is done the Government are not interested in anything else.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Are not the real villains of the piece the narrow-minded interests in the London community who want to shut out what will be a very important development for us in the north? Many people in the north want to make the best possible use of Europe after 1992. Here is a golden opportunity for them to develop a direct rail link with the Channel tunnel, with all the opportunities that that in turn involves, but all that we have heard from the hon. Lady is a disgraceful speech about the narrow interests of the people of Peckham.
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was both ignorant and offensive. He has not heard the speeches opposing Second Reading; he has simply drifted into the Chamber. He has clearly not read the Order Paper either. Let me remind him that one of the instructions, which I support, proposes
"an Instruction to the Committee … that they shall take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the
664
proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland"—
and, no doubt, even Stockton.
I did not wish to repeat what my hon. Friends have said, but I said at the outset of my speech that I supported them. I have not yet got into the habit that many hon. Members have acquired of repeating each other's remarks over and over again; I have sought to represent my constituents. But I think that I have taken too much time in replying to the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Devlin), whose comment was obviously frivolous and not worth answering.
Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has only recently come into the Chamber. He made a disgraceful comment about my hon. Friend's speech. It is clear that he has not heard of the massive destruction of homes, jobs and livelihoods and of the destruction of an entire neighbourhood that the Bill will bring about. I do not call narrow-minded the opposition of those who live in the area and whose lives will be profoundly affected by the Bill.
Ms. Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have already said that the villains of the piece are British Rail for incompetence and the Government for caring only about profit, not about wider transport considerations and people. We know who the victims of the Bill will be. They will be people in Kent, south-east London, King's Cross, Wales, the north, Scotland and the south-west who are hoping that the Channel tunnel will spell economic regeneration for those areas. I hope that the House will vote against the Bill. If, by any chance, it is given a Second Reading, I implore hon. Members to vote for both the instructions that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends and of Conservative Members.
10.35 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: I have listened very carefully for some hours to the arguments on both sides, because I understand the strength of feeling. However, I return to my original belief that anyone who genuinely believes in the regional development of this country and who wants the north to have a fair share in the economic prosperity of the nation must enthusiastically support the Bill.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the instruction?
Mr. Amos: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hang on and allow me to develop my argument. Then I shall give way to him.
As a north-eastern Member of Parliament, I see 1992 and the Channel tunnel as golden opportunities and as an exciting development for my constituents in Hexham and elsewhere in the north-east. For the first time ever in history, they will be nearer to the centre, the heart of continental Europe. However, there is a real danger that resources and attention will shift to the centre unless there is access to the regions and unless that access is made as easy as possible. A direct through rail link between the north-east and the Channel tunnel is essential. With adequate capacity, it could meet what I believe will be a significant growth in both passenger and freight traffic in the foreseeable future—far in excess of anything that is currently being predicted.
With its connections to the north-east, only King's Cross, in my opinion, will provide that vital link. I believe that that view is held almost unanimously in the north-east. The establishment of a second international terminal at King's Cross will eventually link cities such as Newcastle and Naples. I hope that eventually it will link cities and towns such as Hamburg and Hexham.
King's Cross will provide a convenient and modern interchange between international through services and a vast array of domestic rail and Underground services, linking the continent, central London and Britain's regions. I echo the words of the Northern Region Councils Association which says that King's Cross is fundamentally important to the northern region. It continues:
"Unless this and other … decisions are taken, the regions face the prospect of the Thames replacing the Channel as a barrier to trade with Europe."
The Northern Region CBI also says that a terminal at King's Cross will have
"an important bearing on the future prospects of the Region."
I am afraid that one is closing one's eyes if one does not honestly believe that people in the north-east regard the link at King's Cross as vital to that region.
Mr. Dobson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's obvious and sensible commitment to fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the north-east and the Channel tunnel, does he intend to support the instruction? All we are asking British Rail to do in the instruction is to prove what it claims it is trying to do.
Mr. Amos: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer him in my concluding remarks.
Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recently visited my region to tell us how awful it was? He said that it was unemployed and being run down continuously. He caused grave offence to many people in
666
the region, who regarded him as a London Member of Parliament who had visited the area merely to tell us bad things about the north-east. When my hon. Friend frames his reply to the hon. Gentleman, he should bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman is no friend of the north-east, and nor is the Labour party.
Mr. Amos: I am sure that once the hon. Gentleman has listened to my comments he will be better informed of my opinions and about the north-east.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Amos: May I continue? I must get on.
Apart from the significant short-term and other advantages in the choice of King's Cross, such as a more frequent Thameslink service connecting Gatwick airport, I am mostly concerned about the Bill's effect on the north-east. It will be an inexplicable tragedy with far-reaching consequences if he Bill is not given a Second Reading. The new international terminal will be linked to a new terminal building connecting main line King's Cross and St. Pancras. International trains will run between the north-east and Scotland to the heart of continental Europe on the continental rail network. There will be easy interchanges between other international trains and InterCity services on the east coast main line, which will be entirely electrified to Newcastle and beyond by 1991.
In addition, passengers from the north-east will have improved services from King's Cross on Network SouthEast to Bedford, Brighton and King's Lynn, linking the home counties and beyond, and also from St. Pancras to the east midlands. We are talking about not only better through services but better connecting services from King's Cross, with the interchange network that it will create. My constituents, who have as much interest in where the terminal is based as anyone else, will benefit from better international and domestic travel arrangements. Two new approach tracks—on the east coast main line north of King's Cross and a link between the east coast main line and St. Pancras—will combine to provide travellers with a wider range of services.
British Rail is under an obligation to make its scheme commercially justifiable, and we accept that. It must consider demand for its service at King's Cross compared with alternative sites. We are told—the figure may or may not be correct—that three quarters of passenger demand for international passenger services is forecast to arise in London and the south-east. That means that at least a quarter—I suspect that it will be more—of the demand will be from the regions. It is therefore essential that any terminal is located where routes from the regions and London and the south-east best converge and where it can be facilitated with the least congestion.
That involves a number of requirements. First, there must be quick, regular access to central London by the Underground, bus, taxi and car. Secondly, there must be access for through trains to the north and beyond. Thirdly, there must be frequent and reliable connections to local InterCity services to destinations not served by through routes—the onward journeys to which I referred.
The advantages of King's Cross are way ahead of any alternative, such as access to central London. It is served by five Underground lines, and there are many bus services. I am prepared to accept that no road in London

667
is not already over-congested, but it is adjacent to a wide and major road. It is already one of the best terminals for onward travel.
Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman rushes past the subject with a two-second jab at London's traffic jams, I must ask him whether he realises that London's traffic problems are horrendous. Those of us who represent constituencies to the north of King's Cross are concerned that, if only 15 per cent. of passengers travel to and from King's Cross station by car, the congestion up to the M1 will be quite intolerable.
His dismissive attitude to London's traffic does the hon. Gentleman no good at all. He should recognise that siting the terminal at King's Cross will create impossible congestion on the road system of north London. The people of north London do not want any more roads. They are opposed to more road building, and they believe that traffic should be sent round London and that railways rather than the ludicrous development the hon. Gentleman appears to support should be encouraged.
Mr. Amos: The hon. Gentleman has raised some interesting points, which can be easily shot down. It is absurd to say that the people of London do not want extra roads. I live in London from Monday to Thursday, and I want extra roads. The hon. Gentleman talked about congestion in London. This afternoon I went for a test drive with autoguide. That is a way forward, and I hope that Opposition Members will not oppose it in Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that the terminal would create more congestion and should be opposed on that basis alone. That is to put his head in the sand. The answer is to find ways to relieve the congestion, not to say that we do not want a terminal there because it will cause congestion.
Mr. Corbyn: Why King's Cross?
Mr. Amos: It will cause less congestion than the alternatives which I shall outline; I am giving reasons for the choice of King's Cross. King's Cross, as I have said, is linked with five Underground lines. Stratford, the only alternative, is linked to one. It is idle and incorrect to assume that, as soon as someone arrives at King's Cross, he will get into his car and travel north. Many passengers will take the Underground and go west to the hotel district or Heathrow, or take InterCity trains to Newcastle.
Mr. Tredinnick: Although my hon. Friend has sat throughout the whole debate, it is notable that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spent little time in the Chamber. Perhaps he should have spent some time in the Chamber if he is going to challenge my hon. Friend.
Mr. Amos: My hon. Friend is right.
My other point was that, in assessing the viability of King's Cross, we should assess its access for through trains and connecting trains. King's Cross is one of the best termini for onward travel, whether for London to the south-east and East Anglia, to the north-east and Scotland, for the Thameslink to the south coast or for connections to the east midlands via St. Pancras. King's Cross will further establish the principle of the practical possibility of more through London services.
668
This project is of national and international importance and we must consider it in that context. Stratford is not a serious or realistic alternative. All the criteria to which I have referred would be met badly if Stratford were to be chosen. Access to central London is via one Underground line—the Central line—and it is absurd even to suggest the possibility of passengers coming under the Channel, destined for central London, having to arrive in outer London at Stratford to come back into central London for hotels or onward arrangements. Stratford has one Tube line, which is already overloaded.
There are other ways into central London, such as by taxi, but it is over five miles from Stratford. Are we seriously suggesting that people should have to pay for an expensive taxi journey into central London? Most people, of course, will be going not to central London but to west London—either to Heathrow or the hotel district—so one is talking about expensive taxi rides, which would be the only way into central London. Access to other destinations is the other criterion by which Stratford should be judged. Stratford is no good for the regions. The rail station at Stratford, which I use occasionally, is geared to East Anglia and to nowhere else. I do not see why the northern region should be second best when considering this major terminal.
Let us accept that, if we want a second international terminal, it must be at King's Cross. King's Cross provides direct onward travel to Heathrow and Gatwick airports. It is significant that no hon. Member this evening has mentioned the onward travel arrangements from this terminal. It is fairly obvious that many passengers will want to go on to Heathrow and Gatwick. King's Cross is well placed for that because it is on the Piccadilly line to Heathrow and directly linked to Victoria station for Gatwick. The InterCity network is excellent. Network South-East is ideal—
Mr. Dunn: No, it is not.
Mr. Amos: It is ideal for other smaller towns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) well knows. King's Cross is ideally placed.
We are talking about a project that would link captial cities, and hon. Members should bear in mind that international dimension. I recently attended a meeting with the French side of Eurotunnel and I was amazed and impressed to discover how quickly and enthusiastically it was getting on with providing access to, and onward travel from, the Channel tunnel.
In King's Cross we have a site that already meets the necessary and reasonable requirements of an international terminal. Because of its poor location and accessibility, Stratford would not be used by passengers; it would be shunned by them and they would go to Waterloo or elsewhere instead. Stratford simply cannot meet the requirements of passengers travelling to central London or beyond.
Mr. Pike: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about the regions, why is he not prepared to support the instruction in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which would serve only to prove the case? Let us have it in the open; let him support that instruction.
Mr. Amos: Hon. Members may not have been listening, but I have been giving clear, and I believe logical, reasons

669
why I support the proposal to locate the terminus at King's Cross. In a few minutes I shall say why I want us to stop shilly-shallying and finding all sorts of reasons why we should not go ahead with the project. We should get on with it.
Mr. Dobson: My terminus right or wrong.
Mr. Amos: The hon. Member should be more reasonable. I may disagree with him, but at least I have given reasons why I think King's Cross is the terminus to choose.
If King's Cross is chosen, the terminus for travellers from the north-east will become a much less unhygienic and unsavoury place in which to arrive and from which to depart. At the moment, King's Cross is not a very nice station for my constituents to arrive at or leave from, but once the interchange network is established and built, as I hope it will be, there will be tremendous improvements at King's Cross.
Mr. Dobson: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, according to the lowest estimate, 60,000 extra people will be using the station each day? Will that improve the facilities?
Mr. Amos: The detailed plans and design provide for more capacity, and the station will be cleaner and more modern. It will not be the present station slightly enlarged; it will be a different station—a whole new complex. The hon. Gentleman must extend his horizons, rather than thinking only of all the negative factors. If we say that we do not want King's Cross to be the site, we shall be back to square one and the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be the first to complain that in comparison with the French terminus ours is inadequate and dirty. The new King's Cross will be cleaner and more modern and it will have new shops and restaurants. That is what we are trying to build, and the hon. Gentleman should support us.
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and myself. Our view is that, if the station is to be at King's Cross, it should occupy the 125 acres of land behind the present King's Cross station, on which a magnificent Eurostation could be built. What we object to is the idea of digging a dump under the existing station, which is what the Bill proposes.
Mr. Amos: That is another example of narrow thinking. The hon. Gentleman has his head in the sand. He talks about a "dump" underground. He must go to Paris and see the underground dump there. The French have linked their rail network. It is underground, in the centre of the capital city. It does not have to be a dump. The hon. Gentleman should extend his horizons.
Opposition Members have constantly referred to British Rail's land which it may want to sell. I do not blame it for that. The land belongs to British Rail. It must make a commercial decision. If selling the land helps it to produce the new interchange that will be convenient for my constituents, I will happily support it. Hon. Members cannot criticise British Rail for wanting to sell land that it does not need. It can build a good interchange underneath the city, just as there is in Paris—which works. I suggest that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should see it.
670
Let us ignore the NIMBY syndrome in certain vested interests and build Europe's largest transport interchange. The one in Paris proves that such a project is possible. Of course I accept the reservations about architectural changes. It is up to the Bill to take them into account. In return for our faith in British Rail's and London Underground's project, Conservative Members expect from British Rail a much better, more frequent, reliable and punctual service. We expect also a station that is clean and has adequate seating, shops and places to eat. Above all, we expect enough free trolleys for international passengers arriving with heavy luggage.
I note that one fifth of the expenditure on the project will be undertaken by London Underground. It is incumbent upon London Underground not again to let down the people of London and of the whole country by bad management, poor planning, unreliable service and a totally unsatisfactory network.
I agree that, if more passengers are to use King's Cross, there must be not only more ticket halls and subways but more trains to take passengers. We will not solve the problem by opposing the Bill. We must get on to London Underground and make sure that it honours its obligations to the people of London. It has not done so in the past 10 years. It has been a disgrace.
I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading. I regret that no Opposition Member from the north-east has been present to support the measure. [Interruption.] I inform Opposition Members who have been sniggering for the past few minutes that the people of the north-east have as much interest in the second terminal as the people of London have. It is facetious of Opposition Members to snigger at the concept that the hon. Member for Hexham, which is 300 miles from London, does not have as much interest in the second terminal as they have. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who again is sniggering, has advanced no reason why Stratford is better than King's Cross. He has not told the House why it is more convenient to get into central London from Stratford or how the people from Hexham or the north-east in general can get from Stratford to their region and to Scotland. It is a disgrace that no Opposition Member has supported the King's Cross terminal.
10.58 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Unfortunately, hon. Members have seen one of the recurring characteristics of the Government—their ability to convert a golden opportunity and a one-off chance to a near disaster. That is particularly evident when history has delivered the Government a chance which will not occur again in hon. Members' lifetimes. North sea oil has been frittered away. There will be no other chance of that nature. The same applies to the Channel tunnel. The opportunity is unrepeatable, certainly in our lifetimes, and probably for many lifetimes to come. Unless the right decisions are taken, the Channel tunnel will become a dead end, especially for the people of my region. It appears that again tonight, at the Government's behest, British Rail is frittering away the chance to create further economic expansion and further bonuses in the east midlands. That is a great tragedy for the people of my constituency, my town, my shire and the east midlands as a whole.
As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, British Rail appears to be botching along. It is making its policy

671
up as it goes along, and is using piecemeal decision making rather than referring to any overall strategy or real planning. However, I for one do not blame British Rail for that because it is working within the constraints that have been set by Government. It is not its direct responsibility that this piecemeal operation is taking place. It is the restrictions placed on British Rail and the fact that it is not allowed to continue with strategic planning that has led it into this position. I refer to the financial constraints, the refusal to have a national strategy for transport and the refusal to plan properly so that British Rail can take long-term investment decisions rather than these short-term, botched decisions just to make its return on capital.
All those things would become evident if proper scrutiny were given to the Bill and that is the one thing that can be avoided by the use of the private Bill procedure. There cannot be a proper, full public inquiry so that all points of view can be aired, whether about the Stratford interchange, electrification or the type of locomotive power to be used. None of those broader issues, including, above all the strategic implications of the Channel tunnel to 1992, can be assessed through the private Bill procedure. The procedure is an anachronism; it is wrong; and the sooner that it is done away with, either by this Government or by the next Labour Government, the better. This matter deserves to go to a full public inquiry so that every facet of the issue can be examined in the full light of publicity. Unfortunately, that will not take place.
Like many colleagues in the House, I have received representations from several quarters. One fascinating thing about this issue is that representations have not just come from the trade unions, from the chambers of commerce, from only Labour or only Conservative Members—they have come from across the whole spectrum. Typical of those representations is one that I have received from the leader of Nottinghamshire county council, which states:
"Local interests may not be able to put their own case fully, as they would at a local inquiry."
The fact that this procedure is being used makes this episode a shameful one that will return to haunt Governments of any political complexion over the next 30 years. The erroneous decision to go ahead with these proposals for King's Cross without a strategic network or an overall planning framework will live with us for many years to come.
It is the Government's imposition of unrealistic and short-term financial targets on British Rail that has produced the investment decisions, or rather the lack of long-term investment decisions, that are characterised in the proposal that we are considering tonight. The way in which the railway system in Britain has been neglected means that there is a strong argument for saying that a catching-up programme is now required.
British Rail receives £800 million, or thereabouts, in support from Government; in France, the figure is £1,800 million and in West Germany the figure is £4,500 million. Over the past decade the neglect and hostility to investing in anything in public ownership, such as British Rail, has overtly or covertly sought to make railways in this country fail. That misdemeanour must now be rectified if Britain is to become an equal partner in Europe. The east midlands,
672
above all, cannot afford to mortgage its future by allowing short-sightedness and dogmatic hostility to rule investment in public utilities.
Britain has planned to spend £500 million to include not only the route infrastructure, but the cost of a new London terminal. The French have budgeted about £1,200 million for their high-speed line to the tunnel, which does not include the ring route around Paris, and does not take into account their other investments in rolling stock, new lines to Lyon and the Atlantic line. Our investment in Britain must at least match that of the French, because our market potential is five times greater than theirs.
I, like many other hon. Members, in response to inquiries, have received a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the British Railways Board chairman, in which he has underlined the uncertainty of British Rail's investment framework. Because it cannot invest long term, it cannot make strategic decisions. It is caught in the chicken and egg situation. It wishes the initial demand to come from businesses, which say that they need, for example, a terminal or a goods yard, but businesses are looking to British Rail to provide facilities and, therefore, stimulate demand.
That uncertainty is typified in Sir Bob Reid's letter, where he says:
"any scheme is only likely to work if there is adequate demand from freight forwarders to justify the terminal and the service, and if the terminal can be financed as a joint venture project with local authorities and developers".
Each side waits for the other to move. Without that essential overall planning framework, there is stalemate and a King's Cross terminal will be built without the investment that is so essential to the east midlands region.
Another strange example of the poor investment decisions is the King's Cross surplus railway land. I understand that, because of the high return required on capital, British Rail, instead of using that vast amount of land that is at the side of the tracks on which to build the interchange, is keeping aside that land to profit from speculative office building and will then go to the great expense of building underground. That is madness. Anyone coming into St. Pancras or King's Cross can see those 125 acres of unused land. Those acres are being put aside instead of being used for the ideal location of an overground interchange. I believe that British Rail is doing that rather than having a long-term overview and providing an extensive network of interchange lines and platforms on that land, because it needs to make the money on the land sale to meet the rates of return set by the Government.
At present every British Rail proposal must be judged by narrow commercial criteria set by the Government—including a 7 per cent. financial rate of return. It was on those grounds that British Rail refused to consider electrification of the midland main line before the end of the century. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 makes the position far worse, in that it reinforces the criteria and states that any facilities or services provided by British Rail must adhere to the commercial remit. The Government do not consider relevant social need, public interest, environmental consideration or relief of road and air congestion. Yet in France—our nearest continental neighbour—the Government's criteria for investment decisions include all those aforementioned factors. That would appear to be not only sensible, but essential.

673
The commercial interests in the east midlands also reject the Government's approach. The regional chamber of commerce has called for substantial public investment in infrastructure to provide access for our region to the tunnel. I am pleased to say that several regional Conservative Members also strongly support that contention.
Local authorities of all political colours are actively trying to attract national and international investment into the region on the basis of its excellent communications. That will be a hollow joke as traffic goes up the west and east coast lines. The starting point for improved rail communications must be a complete rejection of the narrow accounting practices in favour of a national economic approach to regenerate our area and other areas.
A once-in-a-century project, such as the channel tunnel, requires planning. It is planning that is anathema to the Government. That ideological refusal to consider planning, even in this context, is a major reason why the east midlands may end up being on the receiving end of an economic disaster. We need a package which does not just pick up individual items piecemeal, but which includes a view about industrial regeneration in all our manufacturing, services and other economic sectors. We have to tie in the infrastructure with that sort of economic overview. That means the direction and location of jobs, wherever the lines that will benefit from the Channel tunnel and 1992 will lead. To ignore that is to ignore the basic responsibilities of Government. The package must be for the United Kingdom as a whole—not merely for the south-east, but for all regions. Above all, the package must include the east midlands.
The east midlands will be bypassed by the proposed developments. To ensure that we are not bypassed and that our region does not become piggy in the middle and an economic backwater, we need electrification of the midland main line. A business man in Rome, or perhaps even Moscow or Brussels, will examine the rail map before he makes his long-term freighting, commercial or investment decisions. If the east or west coast lines are electrified and the midland main line is not, it may be an important consideration in deciding where to locate and ship to, and where passenger traffic goes. Even if it is merely a matter of status that the east midlands is not electrified and other regions are, it could have an immense knock-on effect on the economic viability of our area.
I understand that the east midlands line is not to be electrified. The Bill will have a detrimental effect unless we can campaign across party lines to ensure that the line is electrified. I have a letter from Mr. Kirkby, the vice-chairman of the British Railways Board, who states clearly:
"it will not be possible to run day trains beyond the electrified network, as we will have to use permanently coupled electric trains, specially designed to meet the exacting specifications of the Channel Tunnel and the high speed links on either side."
That is Mr. Kirkby's view and, other than his chairman, there is no one higher on the British Railways Board. If that is to be the case, a large amount of through traffic will not have the option of entering Nottingham and the other stations along the line in the east midlands, which would be a tragedy.
Mr. Devlin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman feels, as I do, that the cause of regional development is good and worthy of support. Is not that the reason why it is important that the main terminal should be built at King's
674
Cross, which is on the main east coast line? The only alternative that has been put forward is Stratford which, as he knows, is not connected to the main east coast line. Would he also accept that King's Cross is next to St. Pancras which serves Nottingham? Would he further accept that the east coast main line, which I travel up and down on most weeks, has a train station at Grantham, which is not far away from the area that he represents?
Mr. Allen: The King's Cross option is the one that I and many people in the east midlands favour. However, it is only fair and apposite to consider all options. Unfortunately, if the instruction is not carried tonight 'we shall be merely rubber stamping a decision that should have been taken under full public analysis. I want to present a case to a public inquiry or to a committee showing why King's Cross is right and other options are not. I would like county councils, city councils, trade unions, chambers of commerce, and so on, to have that option which will be denied us tonight.
The difficulty about merely the east coast line being electrified is that if one has the option of continuing up the east coast line rather than getting off at Grantham and catching a Sprinter across, investment will probably be made along that line rather than in other areas. That is a matter of great concern to Members involved in the east midlands from both sides of the House.
The other reason that I would stress that we need a package for the east midlands rather than merely a super station at King's Cross is so that we can also benefit from the international freight traffic that will arise from the Channel tunnel and, particularly, from 1992. As they currently stand, the proposals for an international freight depot are dubious. British Rail is waiting for the demand from business and business is waiting for some indication from British Rail that it is serious about an international freight depot in the west midlands, at Toton, near Nottingham.
Unfortunately, such a chicken and egg situation is not viable. If one is planning long term, there must be clarity about how all the factors will fit together. For example, in France, there are already plans for 240 freight yards, all with direct access to the tunnel. Perhaps the Minister will say how many freight yards are planned for the United Kingdom—probably no more than a handful with direct access to the tunnel.
Mr. Cryer: Is the drift of my hon. Friend's remarks that those hon. Members representing provincial areas should vote against the Bill unless British Rail accept the instruction which makes it absolutely clear that the Committee should investigate the necessity of the
"capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland"?
Is he saying that unless this instruction is carried—so far, British Rail has refused to accept it—the scheme may become so congested that it will be of no benefit to constituents in the east midlands, Bradford, Leeds and the north-east?
Mr. Allen: Voting for the King's Cross proposal as a trigger for economic development may well prove to be the trigger of the gun that shoots industry and commerce through the head in the east midlands. None the less, an international interchange is an essential prerequisite for further development. We need one, wherever it is to be

675
located. Only then shall we ensure that the traffic generated by our trading links through the tunnel with the European community is directed where we think it appropriate. The problem is that there is no serious strategy on where international passenger and freight traffic should go. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about that.
Rail freight becomes competitive with road freight at about 250 miles distance between collection and delivery. That distance will become unexceptional after 1992 and free movement within the EEC. The present plans seem deliberately designed to remove that competitive edge by inserting unnecessary delays and excursions. The east midlands, particularly, will be trapped between the two bows of the electrified east and west coast lines.
Economic development in this country requires long-term investment. It will not happen of its own accord. The Government are happy to let this Bill go through without having thought about it or taken evidence from the parties concerned; they seem content not to invest in an east midlands rail link or to provide long term planning for the freight terminal at Toton which everyone wants.
The Government can bribe Kent with £500 million to placate the electorate's environmental worries, but when the lifeblood of the east midlands is at stake, and a mere £100 million would electrify the line from St. Pancras up through the east midlands, the Government are not prepared to invest the money. It would be recouped many times over. The Government are being hypocritical and deceitful, and the Bill is inadequate.
The east midlands is united on this as I have never seen it united before. Across parties and industrial divides, from Nottingham to Loughborough, Mansfield, Leicester, Derby, Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough —all are united in supporting an electrified east midlands line and in wanting serious long-term planning and investment decisions from the Government for the international freight terminus.
I hope that this consensus will make the Government see sense and allow British Rail to plan for its long-term future. That will enable us to recoup some of the losses that this Bill will create. Without such a change of heart, the east midlands will not benefit, and the Channel tunnel and the link through to London will become one more in the series of great lost opportunities during the Government's time in office.
11.24 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: After listening to the debate for over four hours, I was becoming concerned at the way in which few Opposition Members appeared to be in favour of the railways. Indeed, only the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) advanced arguments in favour of the railways. That is regrettable, because the lifeblood of the future of the nation depends on the railways, which should be receiving much more support, particularly from north country members.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The thrust of our remarks is that my hon. Friends and I support the railways, that we recognise the vital necessity of a good rail system for the future of the country and that we recognise the necessity of having a railway network which benefits
676
more than London and the south-east. We say to British Rail when we ask for electrification from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, "Do not give us pie in the sky stories about the viability of the link between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. What about the viability of the whole line?" I hope that those who are listening to the debate will prevail on BR to publish the figures on which it decided on the viability of the line from London to Edinburgh.
Mr. Thorne: I am grateful for that reassurance and I hope that when the terminal is built in London—which I hope will be at King's Cross—it will receive proper praise from hon. Members who represent north country constituencies.
British Rail has been unfairly criticised for using the private Bill procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said that the House was not being asked to approve the redevelopment scheme but only the railway works listed in the Bill; that planning permission was being sought by the developer from the local authority for the redevelopment itself in the normal way.
That procedure has existed for a long time. In fact, a number of substantial buildings were erected in this area last century to make provision for the railways that were then in course of construction. Indeed, the third largest party in the House is occupying one of those buildings as its headquarters in Cowley street. It was built especially for the parliamentary work of one of the railway companies, and that was typical of all railway companies last century. So we are talking of a procedure that is well established and one which BR could not avoid. In other words, BR has done exactly what was required of it, and it is unfair for hon. Members to be critical.
I was interested to hear what the three hon. Members who represent Newham constituencies said about the desirability of locating the terminus in their area, and, as constituency Members, it was their job to do that. Having examined the matter closely, I find the principle of locating the terminus at Stratford to be flawed. It would have been of some advantage to my constituency in the neighbouring borough of Redbridge if it were to be located there, but it would still be the wrong location because it would not help passengers; nor would it help people in transmitting between the north country and the centre of London.
In the past there have been substantial goods facilities at Stratford and at one time they included a large cattle facility. As a result, there is a lot of space there which I am sure Newham borough council would have liked to use for this purpose. But it would be the wrong location.
Safety and traffic growth are two of the important issues we have to consider, and the King's Cross area requires immediate attention on both counts. We had that awful tragedy in the Underground at King's Cross and hon. Members have spoken about the number of lines that converge at that point. The House must not simply pay lip service to safety, as we tend to do when such tragedies occur. We must see that action is taken to put matters right. That tragedy is one reason why this project has had to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, regardless of what happens to the remainder of the terminal.
Other opportunities must be explored. I find it greatly encouraging that the growth in use of the railways has been so considerable in recent years that many facilities are now saturated. That means that we must deal quickly with the matters that are before us.

677
Many of us have had the opportunity to see what has been done in other major terminals, such as Paris and Washington. We have seen what has been achieved at major terminals throughout the world. There are good opportunities for development at main line railway stations. We can see what has been done at Victoria and what is being done at Liverpool Street. Those who travel to London from the north-east could benefit by having a much better facility at King's Cross.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport seriously to consider compensation. Projects of the sort that we are discussing involve considerable investment—£500 million has been mentioned—and we must ensure that those whose lives are turned upside down by the implementation of proposals that are made for the benefit of society generally are more than adequately compensated for any annoyance and inconvenience that they suffer. Many other countries recognise that people who have been living in a certain property for the whole of their lives—perhaps 60 or 70 years—do not take kindly to being uprooted and thrown out.
We tend to hedge our compensation with many rules and regulations that provide a little more here and there for curtains and carpets, telephone connection, surveyors' fees and legal costs, for example, when we should adopt a much more robust and helpful approach to ensure that the sting is taken out of enforced moves and other annoyance and inconvenience. I should like to see the Department of Transport releasing bodies such as British Rail from the constraints to which they are subject. They are not allowed to proceed beyond the stringent rules laid down, because the Treasury is terrified that that might raise the cost of future projects. I can assure the Treasury that the cost of those projects would be reduced if the present constraints were lifted because completion would be much quicker. There would be much less hassle if opposition and resentment were not stirred up in every direction. Compensation should be considered much more sympathetically, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take that into account.
11.34 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: Some hon. Members have spoken at almost interminable length about many issues that have relatively little to do with King's Cross. I shall attempt to speak succinctly about King's Cross and especially of what the proposed development would mean for the north of England.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), have spoken about what they described as the largest interchange in Europe. What we have at present is not an interchange. We have King's Cross, St. Pancras and Thameslink, and the links between them are extremely poor and inconvenient for passengers. The proposal that we are considering is based on an imaginative concept. It will cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, but it is one that we should support.
The new King's Cross can become the gateway to the north. I believe that it will be built and that those who now oppose the development will be seen to have had their heads in the sand.
An interchange must provide not only for people travelling from the furthest corners of the country but for Londoners and those who commute to London. The
678
capital's transport infrastructure suffers greatly from the large number of termini that are a consequence of the development of railway companies in the last century. There is now an opportunity to combine two of those termini into something that can be a great future asset.
It has been said that the procedure adopted for the Bill is an inadequate substitute for a proper planning inquiry, but that procedure is appropriate for a project having a national dimension—which the future of King's Cross clearly has. There is nothing unusual or irregular about adopting the private Bill procedure, which permits the construction of railway works in just the same way as the many railway Bills brought to Parliament in the past.
As has already been pointed out, an application for outline planning consent to construct the above-ground complex has been submitted to Camden council. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning clause 19, which will provide an adequate safeguard.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned traffic problems. The Bill provides an opportunity to ease many of them. Other hon. Members spoke of the existing level of congestion affecting rail passengers, especially commuters. However, the better facilities and easier access to trains that the Bill permits are bound to be welcomed by them.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waller: I have very little time left, and I know that one of my hon. Friends wishes to intervene.
The north favours King's Cross as a second terminal. I say that confidently, knowing that all sides of industry —chambers of commerce and organisations promoting development in Yorkshire—are anxious that King's Cross is chosen. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the possibility of a second terminal at Stratford. However, if one studies the map, Stratford cannot possibly be justified as the location of an interchange. But an enhanced King's Cross will improve capacity for InterCity trains by rearranging tracks, extending platforms, and improving access from many parts of the country. Right hon. and hon. Members representing the interests of other regions will also identify the opportunities that King's Cross offers.
As to timing, the proposed works—including the new low-level station—are needed as soon as possible. That is why we should consider the Bill now and not wait for a future Channel tunnel rail link. If passengers travelling to and from the north, as well as Thameslink passengers—whose existing separate station is already congested—are properly to benefit, one cannot wait for developments that may take some time to realise.
Architectural considerations relating to the aboveground works will be examined when Camden council scrutinises the relevant planning application. The architecture of the proposed concourse, which will bring together the two stations and link them with the new sub-surface platforms, is imaginative. It makes use of a great deal of glass, and allows the architecture of the existing grade 1 buildings to be seen by all. By sweeping away many substandard buildings, much will be done to improve the local environment.
I see this as an exciting project. I hope that the House also welcomes it and will give the Bill a warm reception.
Mr. Chris Smith rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 41.

Division No. 189]

[11.39 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Forth, Eric

Allen, Graham

Foster, Derek

Amess, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Amos, Alan

Fox, Sir Marcus

Arbuthnot, James

Franks, Cecil

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Freeman, Roger

Atkins, Robert

French, Douglas

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gardiner, George

Baldry, Tony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gill, Christopher

Barron, Kevin

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Batiste, Spencer

Gow, Ian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Grist, Ian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Ground, Patrick

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Boswell, Tim

Hague, William

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hanley, Jeremy

Boyes, Roland

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Harris, David

Brazier, Julian

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bright, Graham

Haynes, Frank

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hayward, Robert

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

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Heddle, John

Buckley, George J.

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Hinchliffe, David

Burns, Simon

Hind, Kenneth

Burt, Alistair

Home Robertson, John

Butterfill, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Caborn, Richard

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

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Howarth, G. (Cannock &B'wd)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carrington, Matthew

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Carttiss, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Irvine, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Jack, Michael

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Jackson, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Janman, Tim

Clelland, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Colvin, Michael

Key, Robert

Conway, Derek

Knapman, Roger

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Cope, Rt Hon John

Lang, Ian

Couchman, James

Latham, Michael

Cousins, Jim

Lawrence, Ivan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Leadbitter, Ted

Curry, David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lightbown, David

Day, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Dixon, Don

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Durant, Tony

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Favell, Tony

Maclean, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

Major, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Mans, Keith

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maples, John

680

Marek, Dr John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marlow, Tony

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mates, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maude, Hon Francis

Steinberg, Gerry

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stevens, Lewis

Meale, Alan

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mellor, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David

Sumberg, David

Moate, Roger

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Moss, Malcolm

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Neale, Gerrard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Needham, Richard

Thumham, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tredinnick, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trippier, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Twinn, Dr Ian

O'Brien, William

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Viggers, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Pawsey, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Portillo, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wheeler, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Whitney, Ray

Renton, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Riddick, Graham

Wood, Timothy

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Woodcock, Mike

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mr. Neil Thorne and

Shersby, Michael

Mr. Gary Waller.

Sims, Roger

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Livingstone, Ken

Bermingham, Gerald

Loyden, Eddie

Boateng, Paul

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Meale, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Primarolo, Dawn

Dobson, Frank

Richardson, Jo

Doran, Frank

Rowe, Andrew

Dunn, Bob

Ruddock, Joan

Fearn, Ronald

Short, Clare

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fyfe, Maria

Spearing, Nigel

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Wallace, James

Holland, Stuart

Wray, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Chris Smith and

Lamond, James

Mr. Tony Banks.

Leighton, Ron

Bill read a Second time and committed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they shall take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals.—[Mr. Dobson.]
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 186.

Division No. 190]

[11.50 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lamond, James

Allen, Graham

Leadbitter, Ted

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Leighton, Ron

Barron, Kevin

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Livingstone, Ken

Bermingham, Gerald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Boateng, Paul

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Boyes, Roland

Loyden, Eddie

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Buckley, George J.

McNamara, Kevin

Caborn, Richard

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Marek, Dr John

Clelland, David

Meale, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

O'Brien, William

Cousins, Jim

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Prescott, John

Dixon, Don

Primarolo, Dawn

Dobson, Frank

Quin, Ms Joyce

Doran, Frank

Richardson, Jo

Dunn, Bob

Rowe, Andrew

Fearn, Ronald

Ruddock, Joan

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fraser, John

Snape, Peter

Fyte, Maria

Spearing, Nigel

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Steinberg, Gerry

Harman, Ms Harriet

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Haynes, Frank

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hinchliffe, David

Wallace, James

Holland, Stuart

Wray, Jimmy

Home Robertson, John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Chris Smith.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Carrington, Matthew

Amess, David

Carttiss, Michael

Amos, Alan

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Arbuthnot, James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkins, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Churchill, Mr

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Batiste, Spencer

Colvin, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cope, Rt Hon John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Couchman, James

Boswell, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bottomley, Peter

Curry, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brazier, Julian

Day, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Devlin, Tim

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

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

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Budgen, Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Burns, Simon

Eggar, Tim

Burt, Alistair

Fallon, Michael

Butterfill. John

Favell, Tony

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fishburn, John Dudley

682

Forman, Nigel

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Mellor, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mitchell, Sir David

Franks, Cecil

Moate, Roger

Freeman, Roger

Moore, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Gardiner, George

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Neale, Gerrard

Gill, Christopher

Needham, Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Neubert, Michael

Gow, Ian

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Grist, Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ground, Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hague, William

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hanley, Jeremy

Pawsey, James

Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Portillo, Michael

Harris, David

Renton, Tim

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Riddick, Graham

Hayward, Robert

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Heddle, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hind, Kenneth

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

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

Shersby, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock &B'wd)

Sims, Roger

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Stern, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Stevens, Lewis

Irvine, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jackson, Robert

Sumberg, David

Janman, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Key, Robert

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Knapman, Roger

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Thurnham, Peter

Lang, Ian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Latham, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Trippier, David

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Viggers, Peter

Lightbown, David

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Lilley, Peter

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Wells, Bowen

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Wheeler, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Ray

Maclean, David

Widdecombe, Ann

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wood, Timothy

Major, Rt Hon John

Woodcock, Mike

Mans, Keith

Yeo, Tim

Maples, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Marlow, Tony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mates, Michael

Mr. Neil Thorpe and

Maude, Hon Francis

Mr. Gary Waller.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Smoking in Public Places
Postponed proceeding on Question, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area, resumed.
12 midnight
Mr. Freeman: In the earlier part of the debate on the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister I explained that the draft resolution of the Council of Ministers is non-binding on the member states and does not have the force of law. We would be permitted to continue our voluntary policy of encouraging those responsible for restaurants, pubs and transport, both public and private, to segregate smokers from nonsmokers, but it would remain essentially a voluntary policy, except when safety issues are involved, as they are on the Underground where smoking is banned.
The Government fully support the Europe Against Cancer campaign, but we believe that the Community should not be involved in setting standards for public health. The Commission, of course, does not agree with that view. However, it proposes to proceed on the basis of the treaty as a whole under this draft non-binding resolution, without any reference to a specific article. Therefore, any decision by the Council of Ministers to carry the resolution would require unanimity.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If the Government and, presumably, the Council of Ministers generally regard this sort of proposal as an impertinent irrelevance, why do they allow the Commission to waste its time on this offensive stuff? Why did they not say, "Mind your own business" at an earlier stage?
Mr. Freeman: I do not regard this issue as at all offensive. It is an extremely important issue on which I as a Health Minister, my senior colleagues in the Department of Health and the British Government—
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Freeman: If I might finish my sentence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Freeman.
Mr. Freeman rose—
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Freeman: If I might finish my sentence, I will be glad to give way.
As a Health Minister, I take the issue extremely seriously and support the notion that we should encourage the segregation of those who wish to smoke from those who do not wish to smoke or inhale cigarette smoke from those who choose to smoke.
Mr. Budgen: Let us understand the Government's position. Do the Government welcome this interference from the EEC? If the matter may be dealt with by our domestic legislature, why is the EEC interfering in it? In the first instance, we are not interested in whether the Government think that it is a good thing. Is this matter properly left to the EEC or should our domestic legislature be left alone to decide it?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter.
We accept that some non-public health matters are involved in the draft recommendation and, hence, justify Community consideration—for example, environmental issues. The environment is being polluted by those who smoke in public places. Therefore, as there is a partial competence of the Commission to consider and make proposals under the treaty, as I said earlier, we should have a mixed resolution. That part which is correctly related to the treaty can be decided by the Council of Ministers. The rest of the recommendation requires that it should be collectively decided by Ministers outside the framework of the Community treaty.
Mr. Marlow: We all understand that these are important environmental issues which have to be decided at the European Community level. These are environmental issues which cross frontiers between one Community country and another one. Could my hon. Friend explain to the House how it is that, if an individual happened to be smoking at Dover, that would inconvenience or pollute the environment of Calais?
Mr. Freeman: Despite my hon. Friend's intervention, I am sure that he would agree that, on smoking in public places, there is an undeniable environmental aspect to the proposals. Therefore, it cannot be denied that, under the treaty, there is competence on the part of the Commission to bring forward proposals. They are non-binding, as I said before. They are recommendations that would permit the British Government to maintain their policy of the voluntary reduction of smoking in public places.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Hon. Members regularly get this kind of thing from Europe, late at night when everybody is ready for going home. I am getting a bit sick of it. Why do the Minister and the Government not tell them in Europe to go to blazes—telling us what to do? We have Committee Rooms upstairs where hon. Members serve on Bills. Sometimes those hon. Members want to go out into the Corridor to have a cup of coffee and a cigarette or to light their pipes. Although through their Department of Health the Government try to encourage people not to smoke because, we are told, it is a danger, when people are trying not to smoke and when they are sucking the mint with the hole, why are they told in Committee that they are eating and that they must not do it? Why can the Minister not do something about that?
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about us staying up late to debate this matter, but I am trying to speed the process.
Despite our past success in reducing tobacco consumption, we are not complacent. Smoking continues to cause 100,000 deaths each year, or 300 people—
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister a specific question and he has ducked

685
it entirely. He may agree with what goes on over there, but I can tell him that we are not going to stand for much more of it.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that smoking regulations in the Palace of Westminster are not a matter for the Department of Health; they are a matter for the appropriate authorities in the House.
In conclusion, smoking continues to cause 100,000 deaths each year, or 300 people per day, and to cost the National Health Service over £500 million each year. We are continuing to monitor the situation and to seek new ways to encourage people to give up smoking. Our aim is to minimise the health risks that flow from smoking.
We have effective controls over cigarette advertising and sponsorship of sporting activities. We have secured a reduction in the average tar yield of cigarettes from 21 mg in 1972 to 13·6 mg today. We help to support ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—which is a voluntary group that campaigns against the use of tobacco. One third of the population smokes now compared with 40 per cent. in 1978. Tobacco consumption has declined faster in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community country, except the Netherlands, but we are not complacent and we need to make further progress. I commend the motion to the House.
12.11 am
Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the EEC document on passive smoking, but I am disappointed that the Minister has reminded the House that the document allows this country to continue with voluntary methods for segregating smokers from non-smokers. Those who have been concerned about this issue, and some hon. Members who spoke on the motion prior to our previous debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill and the Channel tunnel, are concerned about the legislation. Sadly, their fears are justified because, as the Minister explained, this country is allowed to continue its voluntary approach. My concern is that voluntary measures and public encouragement are not enough to protect people from lung cancer.
Passive smoking causes some risk of cancer. It also affects the elderly, people with cardiac diseases, asthma or allergies and can provoke respiratory diseases. It can endanger the development of the foetus. Smoking is also the cause of many fires.
We are talking not about making places smoke-free or about banning smoking, but about segregating smokers from non-smokers so that non-smokers have the right to breathe clean air.
In Britain we trail behind other EEC countries in only having a law which covers smoke-free areas on public transport. In all other public places there is no law to ensure smoke-free areas. Any restriction is merely voluntary. The result is that we still have restaurants and pubs in which there are no smoke-free zones for non-smokers who may be trying to eat or drink. We have smoking in schools and in hospitals that do not have smoke-free zones.
Any conflict of interest between the smoker and the non-smoker should be resolved in favour of the non-smoker. If backed by legislation, the EEC document would help to reinforce the important public health message that smoking is damaging. Legislation should be introduced to protect non-smokers from smoking in the workplace, restaurants and pubs.
686
I fully support the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) which gained the support of the House by 99 votes to 90, but on which the Government have failed to act. There should also be legislation to protect non-smokers from smoking on commercial transport, such as coaches and airlines. Such legislation should also cover hospitals and schools and any place where services are provided to the public, either free or for a charge.
Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Lady agree that this matter should be decided by the House and not by the EEC?
Ms. Harman: I hope that the House will decide that it supports the idea put forward in the document and that it will proceed to legislation. In fact, the document has been watered down; all it says is that it would be a good idea if people had smoke-free zones. I feel, therefore, that it is not worth the hon. Gentleman getting hot under the collar about—would that it were.
On 25 January the Prime Minister spoke at the launch of Europe Against Cancer Year. This is an opportunity for the Government to match her rhetoric with action.
The independent scientific committee on smoking and health reported in March 1988 that passive smoking could lead to
"several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the UK."
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Lady agree that the most powerful point was made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who in his usual absolutely right and passionate way said that we should not be interfering with the rights of the House? Even though the hon. Lady may have a bias against us poor wretched smokers, are we not really discussing whether those awful people in Brussels have the right to dictate to British people? Forgetting the hon. Lady's prejudice against smokers, does she want the people in Brussels to interfere?
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman's fervour is directed at the wrong EEC document. This is no more than a document urging a situation with which everyone would agree. My point is that the Government should go on from that to legislate to protect non-smokers from smoking in the workplace, restaurants, commercial transport, hospitals and schools, and situations where they cannot escape from smokers and the ensuing health risks.
I agree with the independent committee which went on to say:
"non-smoking should be regarded as the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, special provision being made for smokers, rather than vice-versa."
The Minister spoke about the Government's concern about smoking, but there was a great deal of anger and concern that in Europe Against Cancer Year—no doubt some hon. Members will object even to that—the Chancellor's Budget failed to raise the tax on cigarettes even in line with inflation.
The Minister mentioned the sponsorship of sport and leisure by the tobacco industry. Anybody who watches any sport on television will know that major indirect advertising from the tobacco industry is poured into people's homes daily. I believe that the Government should ban all advertising by the tobacco industry and end all its sport and leisure sponsorship, which is merely backdoor advertising.
Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Lady agree that many people smoke because they are under stress? Has she ever calculated what the cost to the Health Service would be of other diseases which would affect people who were forced to stop smoking and who would, therefore suffer greater stress? Is she also not aware that many Tory Back Benchers have been caused great stress—especially me as a smoker—by the British Medical Association?
Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman should visit his local hospital and see the many people in hospital because of conditions caused by smoking. I went around my local hospital and the doctors told me that 20 per cent. of the in-patients with heart disease, respiratory problems, circulation problems—some of them double amputees—low birth-weight babies and miscarriages were suffering as a result of smoking. [Interruption.] That is scientific evidence. Therefore, one of the important things we can do for public health is to encourage the existing trend to cut down smoking.
I welcome the document. It does not go far enough. I should like the Government to act on their stated intentions and to ensure that legislation is passed. We have had voluntary encouragement of smoke-free zones for a long time, yet in most restaurants, public houses, transport, hospitals and schools it has not worked. We should come into line with other EEC countries and legislate to ensure smoke-free zones.
12.19 am
Mr. Tony Marlow: As far as I know, nobody intends to divide the House on this and as far as I am concerned everybody can get the hell out of here.
I am not a non-smoker, but an anti-smoker. Smoking killed my father and I suffered second-hand cigarette smoke for the first 18 years of my life. Despite that, I am wholly amazed that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said that she is content not only with the measure, but to allow the European Community to compel this country to introduce measures on smoking and health. We may have strong views and we may wish to introduce our own measures, but the hon. Lady said that she was prepared to accept rulings on this and to allow Brussels and European institutions to compel this House and this country to introduce measures on smoking and health.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I would not have believed it if I had not heard it myself.
Mr. Marlow: I caution my hon. Friend that such is the state of Europe and the balance of political power within the Commission and the nation states of Europe that Europe is spawning measure after measure of Left-wing, Socialist, interventionist, interfering legislation, and that is why the hon. Lady supports it. That is where she gets her inspiration from. Europe today is about Socialism.
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is going on a Left-wing trail and he is completely wrong. That lot in the Common Market are dictators—Right-wing dictators—and that is what is wrong. It is high time we told them to come off it and to buzz off. We will determine our own destiny in this place and not be dictated to by that lot over there.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Marlow: In a second. One at a time.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has yet to become acquainted with something known as the social charter. It is being pushed by President Mitterrand of France, the other Socialist countries in the Community and the bureaucrats and Socialists in his Commission, and when it is pushed on his party, he will embrace it wholeheartedly because it is Socialism tooth and claw. He will love it and lap it up.
Mr. Budgen: I do hope that my hon. Friend will stop talking about nation states in that old-fashioned way. He and I are proud to be part of a Conservative party which has voted for two massive handouts for the EEC and for the Single European Act, and which has been a most progressive instrument towards a federal Europe. It is no good making these silly remarks which give the impression that there is some reality to the Gaullist and nationalist rhetoric that comes from this party. My hon. Friend must realise that we are a federalist party. This silly talk about nation states simply shows how disloyal he is. That is what the Conservative Government are progressing towards, albeit backing into it.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend makes his point, as usual, eloquently. I think that he will remember that he and I voted against this nonsense when it came through the House. He will also recognise that the balance of opinion within our great party is in favour not of a federal Europe at all but of a Europe of nation states. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend should wait and see. I am more confident than he is that our national party stands for the nation, not for federal Europe.
The issue before us is a recommendation on smoking in public places. In the translation, kindly provided to the House by the European Commission, the word "recommendation" is spelt "recommandation", with an "a" where there should be an "e". I do not know whether that is a Freudian slip or whether it was meant. As the Minister said, at the moment, there is a great argument about the treaty base of this instrument, about whether it should be before us or not and whether it is a matter for Community competence. I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that when the argument is resolved it will be a "recommandation" and will be forced upon the House.
As day succeeds day, and month succeeds month in the Community, there is an inevitability that where there was at first a little grope or grasp for a small element of competence, it then becomes a definite area of Community competence. Bit by bit, the powers of the House and of British people to control their own destiny in areas where there is no necessity for Eureopean competence are being eroded. Why is that and how has it come about?
I have before me a scrap of paper called the Single European Act, to which are appended 12 signatures, including that of our own very pleasant, very popular, not very senior and not, to my constituents, a very committing Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). It is also signed, very appropriately, by a gentleman by the name of Goebbels. I jest not—his signature is here.
The measure that we are debating this evening has emanated from the Single European Act, the preamble to which says:
"Moved by the will…to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union"

689
We are going to have a European union on smoking and health. We might not like it, we might not have thought that we were going to get it or that we were voting for it when we had the referendum about joining a Common Market. We did not have a referendum about a single European state or a European union, but that is what we have got and that is what we have given the busybodies and that is the situation with which we must deal.
Mark it: the Single European Act that spawned this mischievous instrument will be used by those self same European institutions to envelop us in a web of unrequired, unrequited and unrequested European legislation, for our own good and to make us good Europeans, much of it with no other visible benefit. This measure will have a powerful, invisible effect of transferring power from this House to the European institutions.
This has gone on long enough and it is time that we put an end to it. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has grasped this issue and is aware of the problems that we face. She is aware, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is not, that many of the new measures coming from Europe are corporatist, Socialist and interventionist. She is aware, and the House should become aware, that the time will soon come to say to Europe in unmistakable terms, "Federal Europe, no. A Europe of nation states, yes." The time has not come with this instrument which is small, but the principle is important. This is the time when we should start to put across that message.
12.29 am
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I shall stick to the motion, which is about smoking.
I welcome and support European Community document 4225/89 and the draft recommendation on banning smoking in public places. We are all very much aware of the increasing amount of evidence which points to the dangers to health from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke or passive smoking. The fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health estimates that several hundred of the 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom result from passive smoking. There is a 10 to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer in people who have never smoked but have been exposed to tobacco smoke for most of their lives.
We hear much evidence about the likely increase of respiratory-type diseases in children of parents who smoke, and the effects of that may come late in life. Most of this evidence is of the effects of smoking in the home, but there is also extensive information about the irritant and adverse effects of smoking in public places, such as restaurants, pubs, public transport and the workplace.
In Stockholm in Sweden, compensation has been awarded for occupational injury to a woman diagnosed as having small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the lung, which is a form of cancer. It is said that it resulted from sharing a poorly ventilated office with several habitual smokers.
The view that someone else smoking can be a serious health risk was given greater emphasis in the United States in 1986, when the bulk of the 18th report of the Surgeon General gave details about the risk of tobacco smoke to non-smokers. It said:
"To fail to act now on the evidence we currently have would be to fail in our responsibility to protect the public health."
690
Many states in the United States acted, and more than 40 of them have laws that refer to smoking in the workplace and other public places. Some have total bans in certain areas, and others are restrictive, with designated areas for the smoker.
Those in the House who do not participate in the practice of inhaling the offending substance already know the unpleasant aspects associated with the habit—the smell, the discoloration, the stinging and watering of the eyes, the sore and dry throats. Those are just a few of the things to which non-smokers are exposed when gathering with others in an enclosed environment. People who suffer from various allergic conditions or from chest complaints are often in some difficulty when trying to go about their usual business or when attending a social or leisure function.
As I said, in the United States some states have laws that ban, restrict or regulate smoking in the workplace and other public places—laws in which the rights of the non-smokers prevail over those of smokers. In British law, the odds appear to be stacked in favour of the smoker, and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does not appear to apply to tobacco pollution—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise.
Although there has been an increase in public awareness of the dangers of smoking in crowded public places and of the risks to health from active and passive smoking, the Government's claim that their policy of achieving progress through voluntary means is a success story is possibly stretching the truth a little.
The message has clearly not got through to everyone. Some will always flout the rules and regulations—such as the group on the train on which I travelled to Glasgow last week. Seven over-21s sat in a non-smoking compartment and began smoking. An elderly couple in the compartment, one of whom obviously suffered from a chest complaint, began to cough and to be in a bad way. We asked the youths to stop smoking, but they refused. The guard also tried to get them to stop, but they still did not. In the end, the train was held up at Crewe station for half an hour. Two policemen came on board and the seven were removed from the train. They were allowed back on, after giving a promise not to do it again, and they got into another compartment. That was one instance where legislation was policed, but that does not always happen.
There are still many public areas and workplaces for which no restrictions or bans on smoking have been introduced. The unpleasantness, the risk to health and the danger from fire are allowed to continue. Many organisations which introduce their own regulations have difficulty in enforcing and policing them. Perhaps on British Rail we shall have policing. Others will not introduce restrictions until they have the law on their side.
I am aware that there is a civil liberty aspect to this matter, but the draft recommendation that we are discussing covers that. It does not recommend that a total ban should be introduced. It makes it clear that there should be provision to permit smoking in parts of public places, and it says:
"clearly defined areas must be reserved for smokers."
If the Government wished to introduce stronger measures to improve the environment for non-smokers, opinion polls would be behind them. A recent NOP survey for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys commissioned by the Department of Health and quoted at an Action on Smoking and Health briefing on 5 May 1989

691
found that 70 per cent. of the public agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work. That included 54 per cent. of smokers. About 80 per cent. of the public agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking in restaurants, and 67 per cent. of those were smokers.
In view of the evidence that is available on the damage caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and to pollution of the air, and with the Government's new-found interest in green issues, I find their reluctance to take stronger action in this matter surprising. I am left wondering whether it has anything to do with the tobacco lobby. I hope not.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be ironic if we in this place, representing some 600 people, were to enforce on 55 million or more people something which we are not prepared to do on a voluntary basis in our own workplace?
Mr. Fearn: The motion does not force people to do that. In my view, we are all Europeans. For that reason I could not appreciate the need for the debate which took place earlier.
I agree that education, information and health promotion are all important areas that we should not ignore in our attempts to reduce the effects of passive smoking by making people more aware of the harm that it can do. But the time has come for more positive and direct action. For that reason I hope that the Government are not successful in their attempts to have the recommendation—and it is a recommendation—changed to a resolution. It is clear that the Government would take little action under such a resolution.
I am concerned about the wording of the final part of the motion. I shall support the motion on the understanding that the phrase
"which would recognise Member states' doubts about Community competence in this area"
refers specifically to smoking in public places. I am concerned about the wider implications that that phrase might have for the Community's competence in public health matters in general. I do not share the Government's view that the Community lacks competence in the public health policy of member states. There are issues such as food standards and pollution control that have a significant effect on public health for which the Community has responsibility and which is within its competence. I hope that the Minister will explain that point fully.
12.39 am
Mr. Roger Sims: I welcome the opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, an important issue. I welcome much of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in introducing the debate. He reminded us that smoking is the largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United Kingdom and quoted some chilling statistics. He sought to assure us that the Government take these matters extremely seriously. I do not doubt for one minute my hon. Friend's personal commitment, but having a debate of this sort after midnight on a quiet Monday is not an especially convincing demonstration of the importance that the Government attach to the issue.
There appear to be two strands to the argument. One strand is that as smoking is an avoidable cause of death
692
and disease, there is an obligation on the Government to do everything that they can to persuade people, especially the young, not to take up the habit, and to persuade those who already smoke to smoke less or to stop. It is clear that reducing the number of opportunities to smoke has exactly that effect. Secondly, the non-smoker finds sometimes that he must breathe other people's smoke, which is extremely disagreeable. We know now without doubt that it is positively harmful. Therefore, there is an obligation to ensure that as far as possible we do not have to inhale other people's smoke if we do not want to do so. Restrictions on smoking in public places will achieve both the ends to which I have referred. They will dissuade the smoker and protect the non-smoker. That is exactly what is sought by the recommendation before us.
The United Kingdom is not obliged to implement the recommendation, and if it is reduced to a resolution it will carry even less weight. I understand that the Government are not prepared to legislate merely because the EEC requests them to do so, and question whether it has the competence to make the recommendation. I am bound to say that I regret the Government's unwillingness.
It is self-evident that public attitudes have changed a great deal. Only about one third of the adult population now smokes. There are more and more places where non-smoking is requested and more places where there are non-smoking areas. Legislation requiring non-smoking in public places, and especially in work places, would give impetus to the movement and be generally welcomed. The ban on smoking in tube trains and within the Underground system generally has demonstrated the extent to which the public will accept such measures. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government would have no hesitation in introducing legislation if that would be necessary for safety and hygiene. Surely health should be included in the hygiene.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearne) quoted from a National Opinion Poll survey. I need not repeat the figures which he presented to us. The survey was commissioned by the Department of Health. The results of the survey tell us that 70 per cent. of those who were questioned agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work and that only 18 per cent. of offices have a smoking policy. The figures suggest that there is substantial public support for the rights of non-smokers, who are the majority.
A century ago, smoking was carried on by those who dressed for the occasion. They wore smoking jackets. They normally retired, even in this very building, to the smoking room. I do not see why nowadays the majority of us should have to seek out non-smoking carriages and non-smoking areas. I welcome that part of the document which we are considering that gives the rights of non-smokers priority everywhere except in specifically designated smoking areas.
I regret that the directive does not go far enough, but if only because of its recognition of non-smoking as the acceptable norm I welcome it as being at least a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend's Department promotes policies of preventive medicine, including support for the Health Education Authority and Action on Smoking and Health—though that support is somewhat modest compared with the sums spent by the tobacco industry on promoting its poisonous products.
I urge my hon. Friend to tackle, with all the vigour and diplomacy that he has already demonstrated in office, not

693
only the problem of smoking in public places but advertising, promotion and sponsorship—particularly that aimed at the young. If he does so, he will have my wholehearted support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the all-party parliamentary ASH group.
12.45 am
Mr. Frank Haynes: I get the impression that we have the no-smoking lobby here with us tonight. That is what is going on.
Mr. Greg Knight: What about the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)?
Mr. Haynes: I am not talking only about right hon. and hon. Members on one side of the House. I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman jumps to conclusions. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may laugh, but we are debating a serious matter. We are talking about jobs, for a start. That is one important aspect. I come from Nottingham, where many people work in the tobacco industry. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Our problem is that lot across the Channel. It is not a question of "You should smoke" or "You shouldn't smoke." The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was talking about smoking in certain areas and wearing a smoking jacket. I can see that what will happen next is that the Smoking Room down the corridor will be closed. What has happened to the freedom of the individual? Very often I pop into the Smoking Room to see who is there, and the right hon. and hon. Members in there all have their cigars and cigarettes going. Does the hon. Member for Chislehurst want to deny them that pleasure? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am convinced that that will be the next move.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has left the Chamber, but I agree with his comment earlier about directives from Europe telling us what we should and should not do. I remember a debate early one morning on a Community directive that we should allow 40 tonne lorries on our roads. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, the next step will be a non-smoking directive. Who will be squealing then? I hope that we all will. I have had a bellyful of the people on the other side of the Channel telling us what we should do.
As to polluting the atmosphere in the House of Commons, what about pollution of the atmosphere outside this place? What about nuclear pollution in Cleveland and Cumbria? We are not doing a great deal about that. I squealed in Committee on the Atomic Energy Bill about what action that we should be taking on nuclear pollution. Youngsters are developing leukaemia, and we know how that is being caused.
I return to the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just leading up to all the European directives that we are asked to approve—in the same way, I believe, that we shall be asked to approve one on smoking in public places.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not like intervention from across the Channel in the form of actions by the European Commission. Does he not find it a little disquieting that his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) seems happy to accept the Commission's proposals so meekly in this instance?
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me down that road. I am not going to fall out with my hon. Friend. She is a lovely lass, and so are you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Riddick: What is the answer to my question?
Mr. Haynes: I am talking about the freedom of the individual. My hon. Friend is entitled to her opinion, like the hon. Members for Derbyshire, South and for Chislehurst, but I have had a bellyful of being told what to do from across the Channel.
Mr. Day: She is telling you.
Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is entitled to her opinion, and I am not going to fall out with her. I have said the same about the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, but I disagree with her. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have even got support on the Conservative Benches.
I think that you have heard enough from me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made my point. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was it?"] There are some sarcastic Conservatives in the Chamber tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, is always here—like me—until the end of the day, even if it is 4·30 am. But many hon. Members are not here when we are dealing with European matters such as this. Thai is what I say—that I have had a bellyful. Many hon. Members have not experienced what we have experienced in the early hours of the morning. These debates come on far too late, and we are not given proper time to discuss the matters involved.
I am trying to deliver a message: let us get together and say that enough is enough. As I have said before—let me now say it yet again—I have had a bellyful. I am a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is not here, because we usually stand together on such matters, almost arm in arm. We entirely disagree with what is happening. The hon. Member for Northampton, North who has probably gone to bed, disagrees as well. We shall continue to disagree until they shut up over there and let us get on with our job here, and determine the destiny of the people of the United Kingdom. They are the people whom we represent here; that lot over there can look after themselves.
12.52 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), perhaps I may walk arm in arm with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I entirely endorse what he has said. The House is always delighted when the hon. Gentleman is championing a cause, not least when it is the cause of individual liberty. I am not quite sure how he manages to reconcile it with his amazingly competent role as an Opposition Whip: he is a most fearsome character in that role, but a most delightful one when speaking on individual rights.
I do not wish to detain my colleagues, so I shall he brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) —like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)—has advanced very good arguments about the dangers of smoking, while others have argued that it is a perfectly legitimate occupation. I believe, however, that the debate is not actually about the

695
merits or demerits of smoking: I think that it is about the competence of the European Economic Community to regulate our lives.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) speak for a large vein of opinion in the United Kingdom. The more that the EEC continues to poke its nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the Economic Community and are increasingly to do with social matters which do not require unity across the Channel, the more it will alienate the British people and put at risk some of the great advantages to be had from EEC membership.
This is a question of competence. The unwarranted interference of Brussels bureaucrats is far more dangerous than any smoke that is likely to be exhaled by the citizens of our country when smoking cigarettes or pipes. It is vital that the Brussels bureaucrats should be kept in check. They should be told to keep their noses out of our business and to allow this Parliament to determine these matters.
I agree that it is regrettable that European legislation is debated late at night, with the result that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution feels that he must keep his remarks short. The Government were right to refuse to be drawn down the path advocated by the Liberals. It is astonishing how many times the Liberals come to this Chamber to tell the people of Britain what they wish to force upon them. They are a bunch of nannies. They are as bad as any Eurocrat in wanting to interfere in the affairs of the people of Britain. They are jolly good candidates for jobs in Brussels. They are far more in sympathy with what is going on there than they are with the mood of the British people. Last Thursday's election results prove that point. Many of them will soon have to look for jobs in Brussels, because they will no longer be here.
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided not to introduce compulsion but to replace
"the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area."
I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear to those with whom it is his responsibility to negotiate in Brussels that he speaks with the full authority of this Parliament and nation, that we shall not brook interference in our affairs and that he is speaking not simply for himself but for the British people.
12.56 am
Mr. Freeman: This has been a brief, illuminating and somewhat humorous debate. Nevertheless, several serious points have been made, and I shall seek to answer them.
696
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) —to whose work for Action on Smoking and Health, which is much appreciated by many of his colleagues and friends on both sides of the House, I pay tribute—spoke about the serious effect of smoking and the damage that it can do to one's health. I endorse entirely what he said. Sitting next to him is my predecessor in office, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who in last November's debate also underlined the serious effects of cigarette smoking on health. I endorse entirely what she said in the debate, and I have just re-read it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst asked for an assurance that when we renegotiate the voluntary agreements we shall vigorously pursue them. I give him that assurance.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to the importance of no-smoking areas. I agree with him. That is enshrined in the draft recommendation and also in my statement to the House earlier today. He asked me whether the Government believe that the Commission has competence to introduce proposals concerning public health. The answer is no, we do not believe that it has. I hope that I have made that quite clear to the House.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, asked why our policy of voluntary control could not be replaced by United Kingdom legislation. I hope that I have made it quite clear that the Government do not believe that that is appropriate. It is important to continue with voluntary control. We have had substantial success with voluntary control, and we want more success of that kind. The Opposition believe that legislation is required, but the Government do not share their view.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Haynes) believe that this is a stalking horse for EC control of public health. It is not. The draft recommendation is non-binding. It does not involve the British Government in taking legislative action. The measure is modest, and while the Commission is right to be concerned about smoking in public places, we disagree that it has the competence to pronounce on public health policy. Nevertheless, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area.

Brewing Industry (MMC Report)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
1.2 am
Mr. Graham Riddick: The proposal in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply of beer in this country would, if implemented, lead to enormous and fundamental upheaval in the industry.
The report, and the issues surrounding it, need to be debated in Parliament, and perhaps I should explain my purpose in initiating the debate. I have no vested interest in the matter. However, I know something about the industry—which some hon. Members may regard as a disadvantage—because for a number of years before becoming an hon. Member I was a sales manager with a soft drinks company selling to the licensed trade.
I speak as someone who believes strongly in the free market. Any Government action to implement the proposals in the report would amount to an unwarranted —indeed, counterproductive—intervention in the workings of the free market. The brewing industry is a classic example of the free market, having sorted a fairly complex industry into an orderly and consumer-oriented market.
I also speak as someone who believes in the sanctity of private property. I am horrified that one of the main planks of the report would force companies to divest themselves of assets that they have legally and enterprisingly built up over many decades. For a Conservative Government to undermine those two fundamental principles, there has to be clear and overwhelming evidence that competition does not exist and that the consumer is getting a raw deal.
Yet there is almost no evidence in the report that there is massive consumer dissatisfaction with the current set-up. The report tells us that 80 per cent. of beer consumed in this country is consumed away from home on licensed premises. In America, only 20 per cent. of beer is consumed away from the home, in West Germany the figure is 40 per cent. and in Belgium and France, the figure is 43 per cent. Those figures do not suggest mass dissatisfication in the United Kingdom with pubs and clubs.
One of the key factors on which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission based its conclusion that a so-called "complex monopoly" was operating against the interest of the consumer was that the price of beer had increased by 15 per cent. above the retail prices index since 1979. But the report records the results of a survey carried out by the Consumers Association, which showed that only 1 per cent. of consumers mentioned price as the reason for choosing a particular pub. That is not surprising, because beer prices in this country are among the cheapest in the industrialised world. The consumer is looking for the right mix of amenity, choice of product and comfort. If price is as important as the report suggests, why is it that clubs, which generally offer lower prices as well as a lower level of amenity, have declined in recent years?
The real competition exists between pubs. The commission reports that the licensee survey showed that 90 per cent. of pubs had competition within a five-minute walk and that 34 per cent. of licensees faced competition from at least 10 pubs within a similar distance. The report records also that pubs in this country have a much greater advantage in the number of brands of beer per outlet than
698
those in other countries, which is not altogether surprising when one considers that there are more than 1,000 different brands of beer sold in the United Kingdom. Surveys have shown that the British consumer is satisfied with the choice available in pubs—so much for the commission's claim that there is insufficient choice in the British pub.
The report has not even attempted to prove that there is massive consumer dissatisfaction with the current set-up. That is not surprising. I contend that there is no such massive dissatisfaction. I carried out my own survey in the village of Honley in my constituency last Friday by visiting several pubs and clubs. Honley, with an adult population of 5,500, has an interesting mix of pubs arid clubs. I found a significant difference in prices being charged and in the level of amenity being offered. One pub was popular because of its taproom, another was known as a beer house and yet another was known as one frequented by young people. It was interesting to note that the pub charging the highest prices also seemed to be the pub attracting the most customers. I talked to some of the punters enjoying a pint in the various pubs. From my own straw poll, I can report that there was practically no dissatisfaction with the choice available. The only grumble I heard concerned the price of low alcohol beer I was surprised by the high level of awareness of the report. I have to inform my hon. Friend of the enormous concern that it has generated already, especially among tenants and free landlords.
I find it disturbing that the report seems determined to underplay the significance of the massive amounts of money, amounting to about £3 billion, that have been invested in the refurbishment of existing pubs by the brewery companies between 1982 and 1988. The commission makes much play, for example, of the large price increase between July 1985 and July 1986, but fails to mention that that price increase coincided with an especially heavy amount of investment of £1·2 billion in the years 1985 and 1986 alone. It is almost as though the fact of that investment did not fit in with the conclusion that the MMC wished to reach.
One aspect of the report that I find particularly unsavoury is the fact that the MMC highlights the regional variations in the price of beer. I should have thought that lower beer prices in the north could be easily explained by lower property costs as well as lower service costs, not to mention the fact that consumption of beer is far higher in the north than in the south and that that increased volume justifies a lower price. Regional variations are not uncommon where a significant level of services is involved, and I understand that beer price differentials are lower than those in prices for car servicing, cinema admissions and restaurant prices. If the Government act to reduce the regional variations in price—I have no doubt that that would mean an increase in the price of beer in the north —the move will be clearly seen as an attack on the north, and with justification.
I now come to some of the recommendations in the report. The most stunning omission from the report is its failure to examine exactly what effect the proposals will have on the industry. As the dissenting member of the investigating group, Mr. Mills, said:
"the recommendations, if implemented, would be an unnecessary leap in the dark."
The combination of imposing a ceiling of 2,000 pubs on each brewery, insisting on a guest beer being allowed into

699
each tenancy and stopping tied loans being made to the free trade will, in my view, lead to many marginal pubs in rural and inner-city areas being closed, many free outlets finding it impossible to get off the ground and an increasing trend towards a few national, heavily promoted megabrands dominating the market.
The report is already creating ripples. Decorative Glass Structures Ltd., a firm in my constituency which manufactures stained glass for pubs, has written to tell me that the effect on its order book has already been significant. The reason for that is simple. Major brewery chains have now frozen all their projects on tenanted premises. We know, too, that three regional breweries have already given notice to all their tenants.
I find it somewhat worrying that the MMC should so signally have failed to calculate just how the brewers would respond to the proposal to limit their tied estate to no more than 2,000 pubs. The MMC rather naively believed that the brewers would meekly sell off a number of pubs to bring their estate down to 2,000, although it does not take a genius to realise that even if they did that, while many pubs would be bought, those on the margin in rural and inner-city areas would almost certainly be closed.
It is now becoming clear that the national brewers would choose to be retailers and simply sell their brewing interests. That would almost certainly lead to a concentration of brewing in the hands of fewer companies and it would also provide the opportunity for foreign brewing interests to buy into the United Kingdom brewing industry. At the moment, the national brewers are happy to keep the marginal pubs open because they contribute extra volume, but once the interests have been split up the retailing companies would see no benefit whatever in keeping such pubs open, so in those circumstances, too, the marginal pubs are likely to disappear.
I am concerned that, despite all the MMC's fine words about its wish to help the small regional brewers, great stress is laid on the fact that there are still opportunities to reduce costs through the economies of scale. By implication the MMC therefore expects there to be fewer but larger breweries in the future. It is worth pointing out that the report records, albeit in passing, that, in 1986, the number of off-licence premises owned by breweries amounted to about 57 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, compared with 78 per cent. in 1967.
The proposal that guest beer should be introduced in every tenancy is well meaning, but it will become counter-productive. It is intended by the MMC to help small regional breweries, but I fear that it is likely to result in big national breweries spending more and more money promoting one or two megabrands that it will be almost impossible for a tenant to refuse to take, not because the brewery is twisting his arm but because of the X millions of pounds being spent on television advertising, thereby giving certain brands an extremely high profile.
Of course, smaller breweries will be able to sell their beers to some of the national tenancies, but hon. Members should make no mistake: when it comes to a battle between the local and big national brands, there will be only one winner, as experience in other countries has
700
shown. I have heard that a regional brewery in the south of England believes that that provision is likely to see its sales of beer decline by about 30 per cent.
Another effect of the proposal being implemented will be the number of tenanted houses that will be turned into managed houses, which I would regret. A tenant tends to be more entrepreneurial than a manager and contributes his own special character to the pub environment.
The proposal that tied loans to the free trade should be eliminated would be disastrous for many small clubs and would make it increasingly difficult for an entrepreneur to start a new club or pub, particularly if the venture were unique or unusual. Even the Campaign for Real Ale recognised in its evidence to the MMC that loans were often necessary for a new free house to be viable. The MMC admitted that there was a great deal of competition between brewers in relation to loans made to the free trade, and, from my experience, I can confirm that free trade outlets frequently change suppliers to get a better deal from an alternative brewer.
I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. John Moxon, who is involved with the Marsden football club in my constituency. His letter states:
"Six years ago, without any track record, Greenalls brewery had sufficient faith in us to advance a substantial loan to enable us to start up and erect a tastefully furnished clubhouse with full facilities which was then expanded in a similar fashion three years later by further brewery investment. We now enjoy a proud position in the community with great accent on junior football and a family atmosphere second to none in social activities."
He believes that the opportunities to develop clubs in that way will be lost if brewers are no longer allowed to lend money.
Thousands of similar clubs up and down the country would never have got off the ground without the help of breweries and would have found it almost impossible to get a loan from banks, because of the high commercial risk involved and also because, in many cases, there is no collateral for a sports club to offer in return for a loan.
Concern about the issue is not confined to Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) went out of his way to find me and ask me to mention his concern. He is worried about the abolition of loans to rural pubs in Scotland, not to mention employment prospects being threatened in the Tennants brewery in Glasgow.
What is staggering about the report is that it has simply not considered what effects its key proposals will have on the industry; nor has it made any serious comparisons between the United Kingdom brewing industry and brewing industries in other countries. If it had done so, it would have recognised how disastrous its proposals would be. For a start, it would have learnt that the United Kingdom, with over 1,000 beer brands, has infinitely more choice and variety than any other country in the industrialised world and that that is a direct result of the mix of tied and free outlets.
The tie in Australia was abolished 10 years ago, with the direct result that beer prices have increased by 40 per cent. above the retail prices index; two breweries now dominate the market with over 90 per cent. of the market share between them, and the consumption of beer in the home has risen markedly. The fact is that those countries where the brewing industry has no tied outlets are dominated by a few massive companies.

701
The direct result of the proposals, if implemented, would be the formation of a few large brewing companies, which would then spend massive amounts of money on promoting a few national megabrands. Those promotional activities would in turn ensure that the market share of those national megabrands would increase year after year, so that we would eventually reach the situation that exists in so many other countries. Is that really what the MMC intended?
If my hon. Friend the Minister were to report that the MMC does not intend a free-for-all and that the tie will be continued, albeit in limited form, I would draw his attention to the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are far fewer tied outlets than in England and Wales and where two breweries dominate the market with over 80 per cent. of the market share.
What I find somewhat ironic is that one of the few companies that is quoted in the report as arguing strongly in favour of the changes suggested, because the tied system is working against it, is Bulmer H. P. Holdings plc, yet without the tied system the brewers would have been wholly unable to break the near-monopoly stranglehold that Bulmer itself had in the 1960s and 1970s, and which it has now lost, to the benefit, I suggest, of all.
I turn briefly to one or two aspects of the report to which I am more favourably inclined. The MMC is keen to see the conditions of tenants improved and that is an area which needs some work. The brewers need to make some concessions in that area. I know that the National Licensed Victuallers Association representing tenants and free landlords is keen to see greater security of tenure and I believe that in the wake of this report it would be appropriate if the Brewers Society sat down with representatives of the tenants to see whether an agreement can be hammered out in relation to some of these issues.
There are one or two lesser aspects of the report with which I agree, but, as one or two of my hon. Friends are pointing to their watches, I shall summarise them briefly. I believe that the MMC report into the supply of beer is fundamentally flawed. It is based on a number of false premises and seems to have been compiled by theoreticians who were determined to arrive at a preconceived set of conclusions regardless of the realities of the industry. If the report's recommendations were implemented, a number of pubs would disappear, the nature of many clubs and pubs would change dramatically and the variety of outlets would be reduced significantly.
The brewing industry in this country provides beer at competitive prices in attractive surroundings which are heavily patronised by consumers up and down the land. It would be ironic indeed if it were a Conservative Government, and this Conservative Government of all Conservative Governments, who meddled in the brewing industry like a good old-fashioned interventionist Socialist Government. We would not be forgiven if we did so meddle and changed the face of the British pub. My advice to my hon. Friend the Minister is very simple and very practical—leave well alone.
1.23 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick ) for raising this subject. It has been useful to air some of the issues.
702
It is important to remind the House of the background to this whole issue. The subject of the supply of beer was referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1986. The MMC took two and a half years over its deliberations and investigations and reported to us in February this year. The report is a substantial document which, with appendices, runs to just over 500 pages. The MMC came to a clear conclusion that there was a complex monopoly that restricted competition at all levels.
The MMC set out in considerable detail the detriments to the public interest, which it saw as arising from the lack of effective competition in the supply of beer. It is worth repeating those detriments. It found that consumer choice was restricted, both because one brewer did not allow another brewer's beer to be sold in outlets which the first brewer owned and—perhaps especially important—because of the brewers' efforts to ensure that their brands of cider and soft drinks were sold in their outlets.
The MMC found that the tenant's bargaining position was so much weaker than his landlord's that he was unable fully to meet consumer preferences. In addition, independent manufacturers and wholesalers in beer and other drinks were allowed only limited access to the market. The MMC found that the results were that the price of beer in public houses had been rising much faster than inflation in the past few years; the price of larger was higher than justified by the cost of producing it, and that the variation in wholesale prices between regions was excessive.
The MMC concluded that those were serious public interest detriments. It must surely be clear that the Government cannot simply ignore those findings. Our consistent policy has been to give power to the consumer, and the best way of doing that is to ensure that competitive markets work properly.
In the past couple of weeks we have seen quite an extraordinary campaign conducted through advertising in the national press. That was a campaign that was eventually identified as emanating from the Brewers Society. However, that campaign has not sought to argue through the issues in any thorough sense at all. It has instead been based on assertions and emotive appeals, many of which do not stand up to scrutiny. At least, my hon. Friend has actually put and developed arguments and has not simply relied on bald assertions.
I shall try to deal with some of the points that have arisen. An attempt has been made to create the impression that the entire industry is united in its opposition to the MMC's recommendations, but that is certainly not the case. For example, Friday's trade press quoted one regional brewer as saying:
"The report contains more positives than negatives, and if the big six got their heads out of the sand they'd see that."
The Small Independent Brewers Association came to see me last week to tell me personally of its support for the recommendations. It welcomed the opportunity to compete on more equal terms with the bigger breweries. CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—has told us that it, too, is strongly in favour of the report's recommendations. In addition, the National Licensed Victuallers Association supports the arguments set out in the report for stronger tenants' rights. Well they might do so, because in the past few weeks tenants of a number of major breweries have found themselves served with notice to

703
quit. That is not just hearsay. My Department has received a number of letters from tenants who are seriously concerned about their position.
It is worth recalling that nearly 100 pages out of the 300 that form the body of the report are given over to consideration of the views of the Brewers Society and of individual views. Therefore, brewers' views have been carefully considered.
In its report, the MMC paid tribute to the rigour and thoroughness of the Brewers Society in responding to the MMC's questions and to the society's effectiveness in championing its members' interests. Since the report was published, we have seen in the advertising campaign independent evidence of its willingness to champion vigorously its members' interests. It is sad that the quality of that campaign has not matched the seriousness of the issues which are addressed in the MMC's report.
I understand that it is an expensive campaign, which is costing about £200,000 a day. It would have been cheaper for the Brewers Society if, instead of spending all that money—all of which is paid for by beer drinkers—it had spent a more modest sum in coming to my Department in Victoria street to talk to us about its views. I am pleased to report that today, some seven weeks after the report was published, the Brewers Society, in response to our specific request, has written to us with its views and has accepted that it would be better to meet and to discuss the matter face to face.
704
We are not wedded to every word of every recommendation that the MMC has made. There may well be consequences of some recommendations that were not previously foreseen. There are many recommendations of different sorts affecting different interests in the industry in different ways. It is unusual to find many people who have expressed views who condemn every aspect of the recommendations, and it is important to recognise that.
Clearly, there is a great deal of scope for discussion and we look forward to taking part in those discussions. I am aware that uncertainty is damaging to the industry and that many employees, tenants and others have been alarmed by some of the assertions made during lobbying. I hope that we can resolve those uncertainties as soon as possible. We want to make decisions before long so that these matters can be resolved, but naturally we have to ensure that those decisions are properly considered. We are keen to hear from anyone who has constructive proposals for better remedies than those which are identified by the MMC. I reiterate what my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State said last week:
"If the brewers don't like the MMC proposals let them come to us with alternative proposals which address the serious public interest issues raised".
I am glad that the Brewers Society is now to do that and I look forward to discussions with it, but let no one be under any misapprehension: in the face of the serious public interest findings, for the Government to do nothing is simply not an option.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime (Greater London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the trends in crime in Greater London during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is published in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89, a copy of which is in the Library. More detailed figures for each borough in the Metropolitan police district are also available in the Library. My right hon. Friend has also sent some further details of the figures for their local police force area to all right hon. and hon. Members for constituencies in England and Wales and placed copies of those further details in the Library.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received regarding the use of DNA testing.

  Mr. Renton
  We continue to receive various representations from Members of Parliament and others concerning the use of DNA testing in immigration cases.

  Drugs (International Co-operation)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to strengthen international co-operation against drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are pursuing a wide range of initiatives to strengthen international co-operation. We are working to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the new United Nations Convention against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We are negotiating bilateral agreements on the confiscation of drug traffickers' assets. Five such agreements have now been concluded and more are in the pipeline. We are holding a ministerial conference of the Council of Europe's drug co-operation group (the Pompidou Group), under my right hon. Friend's chairmanship, in London on 18–19 May, to discuss the threat posed by cocaine and "crack", confiscation of proceeds derived from illicit trafficking and the problems of AIDS and drug misuse.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, concerning the police role in coping with traffic congestion in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent discussions with the commissioner on this subject 282
  but he has drawn to the commissioner's attention a number of points raised with him by hon. Members representing constituencies in London.

  Exeter Prison
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Exeter prison was built; what was the originally intended maximum number of prisoners; what is the number on remand or serving custodial sentences there now; and for how many hours daily an inmate is confined to his cell.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's prison Exeter was opened in 1853 to accommodate about 280 inmates and the young offender remand centre there was added in 1964 to accommodate a further 53. At 28 April 1989 the numbers held compared with the certified normal accommodation were as follows:

  Numbers held

  Certified normal accommodation

  Exeter Prison

  Adult Male

  236 sentenced

  254

  12 convicted not

  sentenced

  90 unconvicted

  Female

  Nil

  3

  338

  257

  Exeter Remand Centre

  Young Offender

  11 sentenced

  53

  20 convicted not

  sentenced

  30 unconvicted

  399

  310

  Inmates are confined to their cells for 8–19 hours a day; the average is 16 hours a day.

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

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been three such cases during the last year.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about changes he proposes to the pay and conditions of firefighters.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 3 May to the similar question from my hon. Friend the Member of Stafford (Mr. Cash) at column 113.

  Police Drivers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the training of drivers of fast response cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police driver training has recently been reviewed by a working party set up by the
  283
  Association of Chief Police Officers. I understand that the working party's report will be published within the next few weeks.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister of State expects to reply to the hon. Member for Stretford's letter of 7 February last regarding Mr. M. F. (Ref. EBO762).

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 28 April.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals for the introduction of a statutory obligation to provide adequate street lighting, as a measure to protect against mugging or rape, he is considering.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is widespread concern, which we share, about the level of violent crime. Improved street lighting may have a part to play in tackling this and other problems, and many local authorities have undertaken improved lighting schemes, a significant number of which have been funded through the Department of the Environment estate action programme. I await with interest the results of the major research study being carried out in Wandsworth on our behalf by Southampton university, assessing the impact of street lighting on crime and the fear of crime.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement spelling out the differences in summer time by comparison with last year in consequence of the Summer Time Order, 1989; if the order stems from a decision of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Summer Time Order 1989 is necessary to set out the dates of the summer time period for the years 1990 to 1992 inclusive. It also gives effect to the Fifth Council Directive on summer time arrangements in the European Community which was formally adopted by the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 21 December 1988. The effect of the order is to continue the present summer time system for a further three years.

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatal accidents involving motor vehicles driven by police in the course of their duties have occurred from 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about accidents involving police vehicles is collected and published annually by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Full information will, therefore, not be available until returns are submitted by individual forces to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary after the end of the year. However, I am aware of nine specific accidents which have occurred since 1 March 1989 arising from police vehicle pursuits, or responses to emergency calls, which have resulted in a total of 12 fatalities.
  284
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any intention of issuing new guidelines in respect of pursuit by police vehicles; and if he has any plans to meet chief constables to discuss the matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police driver training, including police pursuit management, has recently been reviewed by a working party set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I understand that its report will be published within the next few weeks. We shall consider it carefully when it is published.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the representations that he has received following his recent consultation about police powers to stop motorists and administer breath tests; and how many of those representations supported(a) consolidation of existing powers as no change, (b) unfettered discretion to administer breath tests and (c) spot checks by the police administered on a random basis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 1 February, at column 252, we have received some 3,400 letters from individuals, letters from organisations and petitions on the subject of police powers to require roadside breath tests. Of these, approximately 3,000 express support for extended powers in the form of unfettered discretion, random breath testing or other forms. The remainder suggest that there should be no change to current powers. We shall consider these responses carefully, including whether they should be placed in the Library.

  Sunday Trading
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his proposed new working party on small shops and Sunday trading will include representatives of the National Chamber of Trade;

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining the constitution and purpose of his proposed new working party on small shops and Sunday trading.

  Mr. Renton
  No working party has been established but I propose to hold a meeting on 24 May with representatives of the Shopping Hours Reform Council at its request and of the Association of District Councils to seek a way forward on shopping hours reform. Representatives of the National Chamber of Trade will not be present.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received concerning proposals to build a national stadium to improve the safety of sports spectators in the light of events at Hillsborough on 15 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  My Department has not received any representations about proposals to build a national studium. Responsibility for the safety and comfort of
  285
  spectators rests with the individual sports ground operator or event organiser, who must comply with the terms and conditions of any safety certificate in force for the ground in question.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire outlining the interviewing criteria and procedures to be used by West Yorkshire police in response to telephone calls and their investigations following the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The interviewing critera and procedures are a matter for the investigating officers in consultation with Lord Justice Taylor. I understand that anyone who telephoned the police on the special telephone lines and who has relevant information will be interviewed by the investigating team.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire, as to on what basis and by whom the decision was taken to allow only one week for members of the public to contact West Yorkshire police, by special 'phone lines, after the Hillsborough disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The officer in charge of the police investigation team, in consultation with Lord Justice Taylor, decided to open the special telephone lines for three days initially. Owing to the heavy response on the first three days the lines were kept open for a further three days. The number of calls had lessened considerably by the sixth day and it was not thought necessary to keep the lines open any longer. The fact that the lines would close on the sixth day was widely publicised.

  It remains open to anyone who believes that he or she has relevant information to contact the secretary to the inquiry at room 662, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire as to how many telephone calls have been received on the special telephone lines set up by West Yorkshire police, investigating events at Hillsborough on 15 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 2,666 calls were received on the special telephone lines during the six-day period.

  Offences (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences there were in Leicestershire in 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on the 13 April at column 713.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of road traffic offences connected with the use of mobile car telephones.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to proceedings at magistrates courts for all offences of careless driving and so on and is published annually in "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables" (table 5 of the issue for 1987, the latest available). Information is not collected centrally about the circumstances of these alleged offences.

  Risley
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently at Risley have ever been in-patients at a psychiatric hospital or clinic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Of the population on 5 May (322 male and 114 female prisoners) 37 male and 33 female prisoners have been in-patients at a psychiatric hosptial or clinic.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently at Risley were unable to give a permanent address when the order for their remand was made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Current information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A survey conducted in November 1988 indicated that 13 per cent. (40) of prisoners at Risley who had been remanded from Cheshire courts and 9 per cent. (46) of those from Lancashire courts had been remanded in custody because they had no permanent address or had an unsuitable address.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement concerning the level and source of funding of a new Gaelic-speaking broadcasting authority;

  (2) what agreement has been reached between his Department, S4C, Scottish television companies and other interested parties concerning the use of money currently paid by Scottish ITV companies to S4C, to fund Gaelic television programming.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: Representations about the funding of Gaelic television programmes will be considered alongside the other comments which have been made in response to the Government's broadcasting White Paper.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of(a) the Soviet Union, (b) Hong Kong, (c) India, (d) Pakistan and (e) Bangladesh (i) the numbers of requests received annually since 1979 for political asylum from citizens of these countries and the number granted and (ii) the number of requests received annually since 1979 for residency from citizens of each of the countries and the number granted.
  287
  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 27 April 1989]: Information on applications for, and on grants of refugee status in the United Kingdom in the years since 1979 to 1987, by nationality, is published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletins "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" (tables 5A-5F of issue 12/86, table 6 of issue 13/87 and table 7 of issue 16/88), copies of which are in the Library. Information for 1988 will be published in the summer of 1989.

  Information on applications in the Indian subcontinent in 1979–87 for an entry clearance for settlement, and in 1985–87 for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode, in the United Kingdom is given in tables 6, 9, 11 and 12 of "Control of Immigration Statistics, United Kingdom, 1987" (Cm. 415). The corresponding figures for the other years, and information on applications in Hong Kong in 1985–88 for an entry clearance for settlement, are given in the following tables 1 and 2. Information for earlier years for Hong Kong and similar information for the Soviet Union is not readily available.

  Information on the total number of persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1979 to 1987, by nationality, is published in table 22 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1987" (Cm. 415). The number of persons accepted in 1988 for the nationalities requested is given in the following table 3.

  Table 1

  Applications1 in Hong Kong and the Indian sub-continent for an entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Country

  Newly received2

  Granted34

  Refused initially4

  Hong Kong5:

  1985

  680

  750

  40

  1986

  960

  850

  40

  1987

  710

  590

  30

  1988

  750

  640

  40

  India:

  1988

  4,090

  3,630

  1,100

  Pakistan:

  1988

  6,540

  4,270

  1,420

  Bangladesh:

  1988

  4,050

  3,710

  1,480

  1 By wives, children, persons for immediate settlement, husbands and fiance(e)s.

  2 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  3 Granted initially or on appeal.

  4 These applications may have been received in an earlier period.

  5 Including applications from Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Table 2

  Applications in the Indian sub-continent for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode1 in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Country

  Applications

  Newly received2

  Granted3 4

  Refused initially4

  India

  1979

  440

  430

  —

  1980

  420

  420

  —

  1981

  480

  430

  5

  1982

  520

  480

  5

  1983

  180

  180

  5

  1984

  160

  150

  5

  1988

  190

  180

  5

  Pakistan

  1979

  5

  —

  —

  288

  Country

  Applications

  Newly receive2

  Granted3 4

  Refused initially4

  1980

  5

  5

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  5

  5

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  420

  460

  10

  Bangladesh

  1979

  20

  10

  10

  1980

  20

  20

  5

  1981

  20

  20

  —

  1982

  40

  30

  10

  1983

  50

  20

  30

  1984

  50

  60

  20

  1988

  2,600

  2,150

  390

  1 Including applications for a confirmation of the right of abode (prior to August 1988).

  2 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  3 Granted initially or an appeal.

  4 These applications may have been received in an earlier period.

  5 5 or fewer.

  Table 3

  Acceptances for settlement in the United Kingdom by nationality: 1988

  Nationality

  Number of persons

  Soviet Union

  60

  Hong Kong (British Dependent Territory Citizens)

  1,150

  India

  5,020

  Pakistan

  4,280

  Bangladesh

  2,890

  Assault and Battery
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to police authorities on the recording in local crime statistics of offences committed under section 39 of the Ciminal Justice Act 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: The compilation of local crime statistics is a matter for the chief constable. The information collected centrally relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police covering nearly all indictable offences and a few types of summary offence. (Full details are given in the appendices to "Criminal statistics, England and Wales", pp 180 and 184–8 of the issue for 1987, Cm. 498). The coverage of this series has not been changed since 1978, apart from its extension in 1983 to include offences of gross indecency with a child and offences of drug trafficking, currently together amounting to about 9,000 offences a year. The procedures for recording notifiable offences have also not been changed since 1980 when new counting rules were introduced to improve the consistency of recording multiple, continuous and repeated offences. Those offences made summary under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 continue to be covered, with the exception of offences of common assault made summary under section 39 of the Act. The police are being advised no longer to include offences of common assault in the count of notifiable offences reported to the Home Office, in order to avoid unduly complicating police recording practices for

  289
  summary offences of assault. The average number of such offences recorded by the police in the whole of England and Wales over the last 10 years has been around 600 a year so the reduction in the coverage of the series for notifiable offences recorded will be negligible (about 0·02 per cent.).

ENERGY

  Nuclear Fusion
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make it his policy to ask the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to evaluate the feasibility of low temperature nuclear fusion, as discovered by Professor Fleischman of Southampton university and Professor Pons of the university of Utah in a joint experiment, announced in March 1989;

  (2) what effort has been committed by officers in his Department to evaluate the claims by the British, American and Hungarian scientists in March and April 1989 to have produced energy from a cold fusion nuclear experiment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has already initiated experiments to reproduce and understand the effects which have been reported. It is too early to speculate on the outcome.

  Plutonium and Nuclear Waste (Soviet Union)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, during his recent visit to the Soviet Union, he discussed with his Soviet counterpart(a) the possibility of the Soviet Union sending spent nuclear fuel to the United Kingdom for reprocessing at Sellafield, (b) the possibility of the United Kingdom exporting plutonium under safeguards to the Soviet Union for use in civil nuclear fuel rods, and (c) areas of mutual interest in the development of deep geological repositories for radioactive waste disposal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None of the topics were discussed at the meeting.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the statement made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)Official Report, 13 April, column 1135, whether the reports on plutonium production sent by reactor operators to safeguard authorities on the despatch of spent irradiated fuel to reprocessing plants, give details of plutonium content to gramme quantities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Yes.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The future of coal-fired stations in the mix of generating capacity will be a commercial matter for the privatised electricity industry.

  EC (Meetings)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the European Community meetings on matters concerning his Department held in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.
  290
  Mr. Parkinson
  Full Energy Councils were held in March, June and November of 1985 and 1986, and in June and November of 1987 and 1988. There were also three informal meetings of Community Energy Ministers during the period. Meetings of officials from member states have been held to prepare for the Councils. In addition, Councils of other Ministers have dealt with matters in which my Department has some concern and they also have been preceded by preparatory meetings of officials. The Commission has convened many meetings of Government experts on particular matters relevant to my Department's responsibilities and has also held relevant seminars, symposia etc. Finally, the European Parliament and its Committees and the Economic and Social Committee of the Community have considered relevant matters from time to time.

  Preparation of a list of all such meetings could be achieved only at a disproportionate cost.

  Nottinghamshire Mineworkers (Allocation Fund)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details on the amount of moneys paid by British Coal into the Nottinghamshire and district mineworkers allocation fund for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

DEFENCE

  University Staff (Security Clearance)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of staff in universities and other institutions of higher education working on research contracts or agreements currently funded by his Department are required to have security clearance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is a condition of contract that, before anyone is employed on an MOD contract which may give access to classified information, the prior agreement of MOD is sought.

  Electromagnetic Radiation
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has funded any studies since 1979 in universities and polytechnics to determine the effects of electromagnetic radiation at extremely low frequencies on human or animal life.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rate of recruitment into the Territorial Army, showing which areas and which arms show the most and which the least progress in recruiting.

  Mr. Neubert
  Overall recruitment continues to show a satisfactory improvement with intakes during January and February showing increases, respectively, of 500 and 300 over that of August 1988. We continue to monitor the position most closely and to take stringent measures to build on this impetus including, of course, the Volunteer
  291
  Reserve Forces campaign. Although this campaign is aimed primarily at improving retention, we would expect to see some sort of spin-off in the area of recruitment. The generally improved position is largely reflected throughout all arms and all areas of the country.

  Defence Budget
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the United Kingdom annual defence budget is spent in Wales; and what this is in cash terms in the last three years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Defence expenditure is not accounted for on a regional basis.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research projects undertaken for his Department by the Natural Environment Research Council during the past five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has currently three research agreements and 11 research contracts placed with the Natural Environment Research Council. Comparable information for the past five years is not readily available. It is not our policy to give details of these arrangements.

  RAF Upper Heyford (Flight Path)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 18 April to the hon. Member for Leyton,Official Report, columns 110–12, whether it was his Department's decision to change the flight path used by F-111s taking off from RAF Upper Heyford so that these aircraft fly directly over local villages.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the Adjournment debate on 30 November 1988,Official Report columns 849–856.

  Research Institutes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) list by standard region the research institutes operated for or on behalf of his Department and the total employment thereat, (b) list for each region the total number of such institutes and the employment therein and (c) express the regional totals as a percentage of the national totals.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: As at 1 April 1989, the total number of staff employed at the Ministry of Defence's non-nuclear research establishments was 13,640. This was broken down as follows:

  Number

  Admiralty Research Establishment (Headquarters at Portsdown)

  2,931

  Aeroplane and Armaments Experimental Establishment (Boscombe Down)

  1,101

  Chemical Defence Establishment (Porton Down)

  560

  Royal Aerospace Establishment (Headquarters at Farnborough)

  5,200

  292

  Number

  Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (Headquarters at Fort Halstead)

  2,262

  Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (Headquarters at Malvern)

  1,586

  Staff are employed at a variety of sites throughout the United Kingdom. It is not our policy to provide a further breakdown of these figures.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any intention of establishing an interdisciplinary research centre in relation to ozone layer research at the Meteorological Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: No. Ozone layer research in the EC and EFTA countries is being co-ordinated from 1 April this year with the assistance of a special unit set up by the Department of the Environment and the European Commission. The Meteorological Office plays an important national and international advisory role through the expertise developed from work on atmospheric dynamics and chemistry. It has participated, with part funding from the Department of the Environment, in the large US-led 1987 Antarctic ozone experiment and in the similar 1989 experiment carried out in the Arctic; it is also collaborating with universities in this field.

EMPLOYMENT

  Availability for Work
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions claimant advisers are given to help them assess the availability for work of those unemployed claimants whom they interview; and whether these instructions will be made available in the Library.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no discrete instructions to claimant advisers to help them assess availability for work. Claimant advisers work within the same framework of instructions used by all employment service staff.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In March 1989 unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,918,100, the lowest for more than eight years on a consistent basis. Unemployment has fallen for 32 months running, giving the longest and largest continuous fall since the second world war.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he can give details of the number of people in employment in Scotland and the United Kingdom in 1978 and 1988.
  293
  Mr. Lee
  The information is as follows. The figures are unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variation.

  Civilian work force in employment1

  Work force in employment2

  Scotland

  December 1978

  2,231,000

  3

  December 1988

  2,211,000

  3

  United Kingdom

  December 1978

  24,998,000

  25,315,000

  December 1988

  26,300,000

  26,612,000

  1 The sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work related Government training programmes.

  2 The sum of the civilian work force in employment and Her Majesty's Forces. Estimates are not available for Scotland as consistent Her Majesty's Forces figures are not available below national level.

  3 Not available.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the level of employment in the south-east.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the south-east region was 9,014,000. This represents an increase of 1,012,000 or 13 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the level of employment in London.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in Greater London was 4,053,000. This represents an increase of 261,000 or 7 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies are currently registered with jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In March 1989 the number of unfilled vacancies, seasonally adjusted, at jobcentres was 222,900. Vacancies at jobcentres do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. The latest research shows that only about a third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  School Compacts
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of school compacts.

  Mr. Cope
  Most of the 30 applications for compact operational funding in England and Scotland have now been approved. I expect that all 30 will begin full operation this September. In addition, invitations have gone to the 24 urban programme areas in England that are not already covered by compacts to apply for funding for development work. I hope to be able to announce those areas awarded development funding during the summer.
  294
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are considering how best to take forward the further development of compacts.

  I continue to be impressed, not just by the very positive response from both business and education to this initiative but also by the hard work which local partnerships have put into establishing compacts in their areas.

  Tourism
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the growth of employment in the catering industry as a whole and the tourism sector in particular over the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that, between December 1983 and December 1988, the number of employees in employment in the hotel and catering industry in Great Britain increased by 233,000. Further information from the labour force survey indicates that there was an increase of about 41,000 self-employed workers in the industry between spring 1983 and spring 1988. The estimated growth between December 1983 and December 1988 in the number of employees in employment in the sector of the hotel and catering industry directly related to tourism was 210,000. It is not possible to identify separately the growth in the number of self-employed workers in this sector.

  Hendy and Miskin Quarries
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will order an immediate halt to any blasting operations at the Hendy and Miskin quarries in Taff Ely which are found to he endangering the health and property of local residents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such intentions. Any decision to halt blasting at the Hendy and Miskin quarries would be the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate which is keeping the situation under review.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what methods of assessment are being used by his Department to monitor the development of the technical and vocational education initiative in the 2,000 schools and colleges already involved; and if he will make a statement as to the progress and achievement which has been made by those who are proceeding beyond the pilot stage.

  Mr. Cope
  The technical and vocational education initiative has been extensively assessed both nationally and within each education authority. The national evaluation undertaken by a number of independent research institutions has included statistical databases and studies of management and education issues within the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Significant progress has already been made by authorities beyond the pilot stage in ensuring that the curriculum is broad, balanced and more relevant to working life.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of staff employed in employment benefit fraud investigations for each year from 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of fraud investigators employed by my Department each year since 1984 is as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  450

  1985–86

  650

  1986–87

  720

  1987–88

  785

  1988–89

  820

  In addition a number of other staff are engaged, on either a part-time or full-time basis, as support staff to these investigations.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of prosecutions for employment benefit fraud for each of the years from 1979 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of prosecutions for benefit fraud for each year since 1984 is as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  2,250

  1985–86

  2,800

  1986–87

  3,650

  1987–88

  3,960

  1988–89

  4,045

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the total amount of money lost through benefit fraud in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No reliable figure is available of the money lost through benefit fraud in 1988 because the full extent of the fraud that is occurring is not known.

  As a result of investigations during 1988, however, the estimated net savings to public funds were £65 million.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the 1989 European social fund allocation was divided in(a) actual cash and (b) percentage terms between (i) central Government, (ii) local government, (iii) the voluntary sector and (iv) others; and what were the equivalent figures for 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: Details of the 1987 and 1988 allocations are as follows:
  296

  1987 allocation

  1988 allocation

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Central Government

  323·5

  74·3

  263·5

  65·4

  Local Government

  60·3

  13·9

  85·8

  21·3

  Volutary sector

  16·5

  3·8

  23·0

  5·8

  Others

  34·7

  8·0

  29·1

  7·25

  My Department is awaiting notification from the European Commision of the amounts allocated to individual schemes for 1989.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many European social fund projects submitted by the voluntary sector were given(a) full priority decisions, (b) part priority decisions, (c) no priority decisions and (d) not eligible decisions in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: The status given by the European Commission to projects submitted by the voluntary sector is as follows:

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Full priority

  251

  372

  232

  Part priority including partly eligible

  45

  87

  272

  No priority

  21

  20

  70

  Not eligible

  33

  29

  75

  TOTAL

  350

  508

  649

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many European social fund projects designed to train people in the skills required to establish new trading enterprises(a) received full priority and (b) received part priority in 1987, 1988 and 1989; and how many of these projects were devoted to training people to establish co-operatives.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: I regret that the information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria for cost per trainee were used in judging European social fund projects submitted by the voluntary sector in 1989; whether these criteria were published before the closing date for applications; and whether the criteria were based on those set out in any European Commission decision on management of the European social fund.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: The Commission publishes no criteria on the costs per trainee which it uses for any category of European social fund projects.

  Dock Workers (Wages)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the average wages of dockers in non-dock labour scheme ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: Pay rates in ports outside the dock labour scheme are determined locally, as is the case for ports covered by the scheme. Average pay therefore varies between ports, both in and out of the scheme. Detailed average pay figures for the main ports outside the scheme could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  National Dock Labour Board
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the different welfare expenses of the National Dock Labour Board in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to page 17 of the board's annual report for 1987, which provides the following information on medical and welfare expenses over that year.

  £

  Medical supplies and services

  19,110

  First aid training

  74,937

  Less: amount receivable from other users

  (60,649)

  Rehabilitation services

  22,491

  Sports activities

  59,292

  Dock workers clubs

  50,135

  Other welfare expenses

  9,648

  174,964

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date he anticipates that all schools will be run on a local management basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend expects local management to be introduced progressively from April 1990. All secondary schools and all primary schools with 200 or more pupils in authorities outside inner London must receive delegated budgets by April 1993. For inner London boroughs, all qualifying schools must receive delegated budgets by April 1994.

  Bromley Schools (Amalgamation)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the circumstances under which the London borough of Bromley was retrospectively permitted to change its section 12 notice for the amalgamation of an infant and junior school at Poverest, Orpington; and whether he will reconsider the decision to permit the amalgamation.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend approved, on 20 February 1989, section 12 proposals, published by the London borough of Bromley, to amalgamate Poverest infant and junior schools. Bromley subsequently wrote requesting a modification to the proposals relating to admissions. In accordance with section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980, my right hon. Friend approved the modification on 21 March 1989. While my right hon. Friend is empowered to modify the proposals at the request of the authority, he is not empowered to rescind his decision on the proposals. Bromley LEA is therefore under a duty to implement the proposals as approved with the modification.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to alter educational material distributed to schools concerning AIDS in the 298
  light of the evidence presented in the journal of the American Medical Association 1989, 261(2), pp. 244–5, that passionate kissing favours the transmission of HIV.

  Mr. Butcher
  On the basis of advice from the Department of Health, my right hon. Friend has no plans to alter the guidance currently given to schools concerning the risks of HIV infection from kissing.

  Design
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing(a) the number of in-service training courses offered by his Department in design in each of the past five years, (b) the cost of each year's programme and (c) the number of teachers participating in such courses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The details requested are given in the table. The courses range in length from one to six days arid involve not only school teachers but also lecturers arid advisers. The courses are organised and run by Her Majesty's inspectorate with contributions from others knowledgeable in the field, including industrialists. The costs stated include the charges made by the venues for facilities, the fees and subsistence of speakers and the cost of materials and all tuition.

  The courses are often heavily over-subscribed and attract applications from Europe as well as the United Kingdom.

  Year

  Number of Courses

  Number of participants

  Cost (£)

  1984

  10

  746

  21,629

  1985

  5

  477

  13,160

  1986

  7

  591

  16,796

  1987

  7

  650

  22,465

  1988

  12

  1,113

  29,864

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing the number of(a) teacher training colleges offering courses in design and (b) student teacher's training design courses in each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty-five institutions in England and Wales offer secondary phase initial teacher training courses in craft, design and technology. Design may also form a significant part in the subject studies element in primary phase courses and secondary phase courses in art and in art and design. The table shows the number of students recruited to secondary phase courses in craft, design and technology in each of the last five years:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  487

  1985

  452

  1986

  551

  1987

  754

  1988

  783

  Source: DES annual survey of recruitment to initial teacher training.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have advisers or inspectors who specialise in design.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford of 15 March,Official Report, columns 221–22, if he will describe how, in 1987, his Department determined the numbers of rate B, rate D and rate E incentive allowances which would be awarded automatically as at 30 September 1987; whether the information used in making such determinations was up to date; what information subsequently became available to his Department regarding the actual numbers of teachers either on the basis of entitlement to such automatic awards or on the basis of payment of such awards; whether the numbers of actual payments exceeded the original expectations of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: Circular 8/87 assumed that 129,000 teachers in ordinary schools would be awarded an incentive allowance in October 1987, of whom 104,000 would receive a B, D or E allowance automatically as a result of being on scale 3, scale 4 or the senior teacher scale on 30 September 1987. These numbers were based on the distribution of teachers across the pay scales at March 1985 as shown on the database of teacher records. Results from the DTR are currently emerging about two years in arrears because of delays in the supply of information to the Department. The Department projected these 1985 DTR data forward to September 1987 on the basis of assumptions about wastage, recruitment and the movement of teachers on the pay scales.

  DTR data for March 1987 will be available shortly. Early indications are that the numbers of teachers on scale 3, scale 4 or the senior teacher scale in March 1987 were slightly higher than had been projected at the time the system of incentive allowances was being introduced. Information about the numbers of teachers who actually received an incentive allowance in October 1987 will become available in due course from the 1988 DTR.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford of 15 March,Official Report, columns 221–22, what was the total cost to employers of school teachers' incentive allowances in financial year 1987–88 (a) on the basis of his Department's plans before October 1987 and (b) on the basis of outturn figures; what amount and proportion, for each case (a) and (b) above, relates to allowances awarded automatically on 30 September 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: The estimated cost of incentive allowances awarded to teachers in ordinary schools in the financial year 1987–88 was £113 million, of which approximately £106 million (94 per cent.) was in respect of allowances awarded automatically on 1 October 1987. Outturn figures for the cost of incentive allowances cannot be disaggregated from the total cost of teachers' pay.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what qualities and abilities are fundamental to the appointment of an individual as a Queen's counsel; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor recommends the grant of silk only to barristers of sufficient standing who he is satisfied have reached an appropriate level of professional eminence and distinction.

  Category A Prisoners (Trials)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his practice with respect to ordering the trials of category A prisoners to be held at the most cost-effective location; and under what powers he acts in such circumstances.

  The Attorney-General
  Should the prosecution or defence wish the place of trial to be other than that directed by the justices under section 7 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, application may be made to the Crown court under s.76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the application being heard by a judge of the High Court in open court, who may comply with or refuse the application, or give a direction not in compliance with it as the court thinks fit. Classification and allocation to judges of cases triable in the Crown court and place of trial generally are governed by a practice direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor on 2 November 1987 pursuant to section 75 of the 1981 Act.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 310, what aspect of the public interest persuaded him not to refer the House of Fraser inspector's report to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend's decision was reached after taking into account all relevant considerations.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made by the serious fraud squad in its inquiries with the House of Fraser report; when he expects it to complete its inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot say.

  Business Development Consultancy
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications were(a) received, and (b) approved for business development consultancy initiatives from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989; and what was the total amount of expenditure involved, for each of the regions of his Department, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  In the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989, 19,691 applications were received for the business
  301
  development consultancy initiatives. In the same period 14,221 applications were approved for assisted consultancy. The Department's contribution to the cost of completed consultancies totalled £14·3 million. It is estimated that those consultancies not completed by 31

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  DTI Region/Country

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved for assisted consultancy

  DTI Expenditure on completed consultancies

  Estimated expenditure on outstanding consultancies

  (£'000)

  (£'000)

  North East

  1,003

  751

  686

  980

  North West

  2,954

  2,401

  2,744

  3,643

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,917

  1,359

  1,601

  1,910

  West Midlands

  2,102

  1,456

  1,558

  2,740

  East Midlands

  1,173

  916

  943

  1,447

  South West

  1,933

  1,141

  886

  1,711

  South East:

  Cambridge

  1,439

  915

  643

  1,229

  London

  2,199

  1,504

  1,415

  1,817

  Reading

  1,136

  871

  672

  1,115

  Reigate

  1,116

  820

  658

  1,066

  Scotland

  1,529

  1,235

  1,644

  2,076

  Wales

  1,190

  852

  843

  1,200

  Total

  19,691

  14,221

  14,293

  20,934

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current import penetration of the market for household electrical goods.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Taking the coverage of "household electrical goods" to be the same as that of Business Monitor PQ 3460—"Domestic electrical appliances"—it is estimated that in 1988 the import penetration of the market for household electrical goods was 40 per cent.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on his Department's objectives for the completion of the single European market; and on what steps he is taking to ensure the attainment of those objectives.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: We strongly support progress to complete the single European market. Areas to which we attach particular priority include the liberalisation of financial services: public purchasing, transport and telecommunications services, and the removal of technical barriers to trade. In the Council of Ministers, we will continue to press for these objectives to be achieved in ways which open markets without placing unnecessary burdens on business, and which ensure that the Community remains open to the outside world.

  The Government are also determined that United Kingdom industry should be as well placed as possible to meet the challenges the single market will bring. Our "Europe—Open for Business" campaign is designed to ensure that businesses are fully aware of the changes and to encourage them to take action to adapt their strategies accordingly.
  302
  March 1989 will cost the Department £20·9 million. A breakdown of numbers and cost of consultancy projects for each DTI region and for Scotland and Wales is as follows:

  Productivity (Steel and Coal)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to increases in productivity in(a) the steel industry and (b) the coal industry since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The official data series on productivity was published by the Department of Employment in the Employment Gazette but these do not include separately identifiable figures For the steel industry and the coal industry. The following data from the annual census of production provide the required information for the iron and steel industry and for coal extraction and the manufacture of solid fuels for the period to 1987, the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Iron and steel industry1

  Year

  Production (gross value added)(1985 prices)

  Employment

  Productivity (gross value added per head)(1985 prices)

  £ billion

  thousands

  £ thousands

  1979

  1·4

  184·8

  7·3

  1980

  0·9

  145·0

  6·4

  1981

  1·2

  111·9

  10·6

  1982

  0·9

  92·9

  9·6

  1983

  1·2

  78·6

  15·8

  1984

  1·3

  69·7

  18·1

  1985

  1·4

  67·3

  20·3

  1986

  1·4

  64·0

  21·9

  1987

  1·7

  56·0

  30·6

  1 The iron and steel industry comprises group 221 of the Standard Industrial Classification (revised 1980) and covers the iron and steel industry as defined by the European Coal and Steel Community in the treaty of Paris, 1951.

  303

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels2

  Year

  Production (gross value added)(1985 prices)

  Employment

  Productivity (gross value added per head)(1985 prices)

  1979

  3·9

  282·9

  13·9

  1980

  4·1

  280·5

  14·6

  1981

  4·0

  268·2

  14·8

  1982

  3·7

  256·5

  14·6

  1983

  3·3

  236·3

  13·9

  1984

  0·9

  217·3

  4·2

  1985

  2·6

  172·4

  15·1

  1986

  2·3

  157·6

  14·7

  1987

  1·9

  130·6

  14·9

  2 Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels comprises group 111 of the Standard Industrial Classification (revised 1980).

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the numbers of cars manufactured per employee in the United Kingdom, other European countries and Japanese car plants in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The information is not available.

  Child Labour (Third World)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to name those high street stores which currently sell goods whose manufacturing process has involved the use of child labour in countries of the Third world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The issue of child labour is a distressing phenomenon of Third world commerce but one of long standing. The complexity of the problem makes indirect action of the kind the hon. Member suggests both impractical and quite possibly unjust.

THE ARTS

  Northern Ballet Theatre
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many representations have been received(a) by his Office and (b) by the Arts Council on the subject of the future of the Northern Ballet theatre.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received more than 100 letters from hon. and right hon. Members, and a similar number from members of the public. The Arts Council has received more than 12,000 letters and postcards.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has ever sought permission from the appropriate authorities in(a) the
  304
  Republic of South Africa and (b) Namibia, to change the safeguards and use of coding on uranium from those countries, from N to P.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply. No.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Chilean Government regarding their announced reduction in the number of representatives to be elected for the Chilean Parliament in the general elections in those constituencies with an opposition majority.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. There have so far been no official proposals regarding the electoral law, or electoral boundaries and districts.

  West Germany
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the West German Foreign Minister; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met Herr Genscher on 14 and 15 April at an informal weekend meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers in Granada, where a range of European Community and other international issues were discussed.

  Narcotics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are in force to interdict supplies of chemical materials necessary for the manufacture of narcotics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances contains provisions designed to prevent diversion of substances for illicit drugs manufacture. A total of 64 countries, including the United Kingdom, have signed the convention. We intend to ratify it as soon as Parliament approves enabling legislation.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of Austria, West Germany, Holland and Turkey regarding drug trafficking through those countries into western Europe.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions on drugs with all four countries take place periodically within the Council of Europe Pompidou group. A ministerial meeting of this group will be held in London next week. In addition, we are discussing with the Federal Republic of Germany the possibility of a bilateral asset seizure agreement, and bilateral talks with the Dutch on a similar agreement are planned for later this month.

  Visas
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications from Polish residents to visit relations in the United Kingdom remain outstanding at the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to determine how many of the 1,991 short-term visit applications currently—28 April —under consideration at the British embassy, Warsaw originate from Polish nationals seeking to visit relations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy for granting visas to Argentine nationals; how long applications take to be considered; and how many applications have been turned down in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Visas are normally granted to Argentine nationals, other than serving military officers, who can satisfy an entry clearance officer that they meet the requirements of the immigration rules. Straightforward applications lodged with the British interests section of the Swiss embassy in Buenos Aires are processed within three days. Figures for refusals are readily available only for visa applications lodged in Buenos Aires. These are:

  1986 — five

  1987 — three

  1988 — two

  "Britain's Voice in South Africa"
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to public funds of publishing the pamphlet "Britain's Voice in South Africa".

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 2 May.

  Syria
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with their EEC partners are pressing to obtain Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have consistently called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, in order that the country's national unity, integrity, full sovereignty and independence may be restored.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any action(a) unilaterally, and (b) with his European colleagues, to halt the escalation of arms sales to the middle east in order to reduce the possibility of arms falling into unauthorised hands.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All exports of British defence-related equipment are considered on a strict case-by-case basis taking account of the United Kingdom's political, strategic and security interests. Each transaction is subject to stringent export licensing procedures, including where appropriate an end-user undertaking and a no transfer clause.
  306
  These strict procedures are applied uniformly to all defence equipment exports worldwide, including the middle east. In addition, special restrictions are applied to exports to certain middle eastern countries, reflecting our wish not to fuel or prolong conflicts in the region, and our determination to take a firm line on state-sponsored terrorism.

  We believe that restraint can be brought about only by wider international agreement on ways to control the escalation of arms sales and to reduce tension. In that spirit we co-sponsored a resolution adopted in the UN first committee in November 1988 calling inter alia for reinforcement of national systems of control.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he would expect a Vietnamese refugee arriving in Hong Kong today to have completed the screening procedure at the present rate of disposal; how much longer he would expect the appeal procedure to take if screened out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the present rate of screening, Vietnamese boat people arriving in Hong Kong today would have to wait for about four and a half years before they could be screened. Those screened out who appeal against the decision could expect to wait another year before the appeal is determined. The Hong Kong Government are aware that the present screening and appeal procedures take too long to complete: these procedures are under urgent review.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs!what is the nationality status of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong; what provision is made under the British Nationality Act concerning the status of children born to refugees residing in the territory of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The nationality of Vietnamese refugees and boat people in Hong Kong will be governed by the nationality laws of Vietnam, or of any other state whose nationality they might claim.

  Persons born in Hong Kong before 1 January 1983, including those born to Vietnamese refugees, were born "British subjects: citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" under the British Nationality Act 1948. On 1 January 1983, such persons became British Dependent Territories Citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on that date. After that date, persons born to Vietnamese refugees or boat people in Hong Kong do not have British nationality by virtue of their birth there.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is given to Vietnamese refugees during the screening procedure in Hong Kong, including advice as to legal representation; whether such refugees are entitled to legal representation during the procedure; if he will place in the Library copies of the forms of all notices and documents served upon such refugees; what proportion of the refugees is represented by lawyers during the screening procedure; and if he will make a statement.
  307
  Mr. Eggar
  Asylum seekers are informed of the nature and purpose of the screening procedure before the screening interview. Those asylum seekers who, after the screening interview, are refused refugee status are informed in writing of their right of appeal, how to lodge an appeal, and the availability of legal assistance from the UNHCR in preparing their statements of appeal. Notices and documents served to asylum seekers will be obained from the Hong Kong authorities and placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any proposals to extend to Hong Kong the treaty obligations applicable to the United Kingdom as a result of United Kingdom ratification of the United Nations convention on refugees (1951) and the protocol (1967); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The procedures currently being used in Hong Kong to determine whether newly arrived boat people meet the criteria for refugee status are fully in accordance with the terms of the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol.

  EC (Meetings)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the European Community meetings on matters concerning his Department held in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Council met on three occasions in both 1985 and 1988 and twice in both 1986 and 1987. The Foreign Affairs Council met on 13 occasions in 1985, 11 in 1986 and 1987 and 12 in 1988; there were also occasional informal meetings of Foreign Ministers. In addition, there were numerous meetings of officials. Information on the number of such meetings could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Embassies (Commercial Departments)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many full-time Foreign Office personnel are employed in the commercial department of British embassies in(a) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (b) China, (c) Japan, (d) France and (e) West Germany.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The total numbers of staff working in the commercial sections of our overseas posts (embassies and consulates general) by country are:

  United Kingdom based

  Locally engaged

  USSR

  9

  5

  China

  19

  9

  Japan

  12

  31

  France

  12

  27

  West Germany

  18

  54

  This includes the heads of each post and other staff who have more than just commercial work responsibilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Junction Safety
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what road markings exist at the junction of the Buchill Park avenue with Buchill road; whether the sight lines at this junction comply with present road design standards; when the hedges at this junction were last cut back; when a footway will be provided at this location; and what other proposals he has to improve this road junction.

  Mr. Needham
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's question refers to Beechill Park avenue and Beechill road.

  As is customary with junctions of this type, road markings do not exist at the junction of Beechill Park avenue Beechill road. The sight line to the left at this junction complies with the normal standard, the sight line to the right does not. The roads service has no record of when the hedges at this junction were last cut back but can confirm that they are regularly faced by the owner. At the present time they do not overhang the road.

  There are no plans to provide a footway or to carry out any improvements at this location.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total costs incurred by the siting of the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield; of this sum how much relates to wages and salaries of the staff involved, how much to security measures taken; how the rest of the sum was expended, and how much of the total under each heading was borne by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Secretariat is operated on a basis of shared costs for shared facilities, the Irish Government contributing to the operating expenses in varying proportions, reflecting the use made of each facility. The costs to the Irish Government of their staff, transport etc. is a matter for them. Salaries and wages for the British staff over the total period from the start in December 1985 to 30 April 1989 amounted to £405,000. Security costs fall exclusively to the British Government. Manpower costs for security were £1,666,000. Other costs, totalling three-quarters of a million pounds, comprised alterations to the building and site, and operating expenses.

  Processions and Marches
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any representations have been made to him by the Government of the Irish Republic about any processions or marches which(a) have taken place, or (b) were banned by him in Northern Ireland in each year since 1984, or (c) about any scheduled to take place in the current year.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Irish Government have made representations from time to time about particular marches and processions in Northern Ireland, the details of which are confidential. These representations, like any others, are passed on to the Chief Constable of the RUC who has operational responsibility for this matter. Any decision by me to ban or reroute a march or procession would be made on the basis of his recommendation.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to the respective numbers of premium recipients at each social security office in determining the 1989–90 social fund budget.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The characteristics of the income support caseload of each social security office were taken into account in determining its social fund budget for 1989–90—that is, the number of pensioners, people with disability premiums, unemployed and others. Details of the basis of the calculations were placed in the Library on 23 March.

  Income Support
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated number of 16 and 17-year-olds who since the September 1988 changes to general income support entitlement have continued to be entitled to income support in their own right.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: The information requested is not available.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated number of school leavers affected by the September 1988 changes removing general income support entitlement and guaranteeing a YTS place and training allowance.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: The only available information about summer school leavers affected is the number who were receiving extended child benefit. The highest figure between September and December 1988 was 621.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of lower-paid families with and without children whose marginal tax rates including benefit withdrawal will be(a) 90 to 100 per cent., (b) 80 to 90 per cent., (c) 70 to 80 per cent., (d) 60 to 70 per cent., (e) 50 to 60 per cent. and (f) 40 to 50 per cent., taking into account the tax changes for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information requested is as follows:

  Combined marginal income tax and benefit withdrawal rates 1989–90 Working heads of tax units (000) Great Britain numbers facing combined rates of over 40 per cent.—in bands

  Families with children

  Couples and single people

  Total

  100 per cent. and over

  —

  —

  —

  90 per cent. to 99 per cent.

  40

  5

  45

  80 per cent. to 89 per cent.

  155

  10

  165

  70 per cent. to 79 per cent.

  170

  35

  205

  60 per cent. to 69 per cent.

  1

  5

  5

  50 per cent. to 59 per cent.

  1

  5

  5

  40 per cent. to 49 per cent.

  10

  25

  35

  Notes:

  (i) Marginal deduction rates shown are for heads of tax units
  310
  in receipt of Family Credit/Housing benefit where at least one partner works 24 hours or more a week.

  (ii) All estimates are for 1989–90 and are based on combined 1985 and 1986 Family Expenditure Survey data and are consistent with this year's Government Expenditure White Paper.

  (iii)1 denotes an estimate of fewer than 2,500.

  (iv) The total number of working heads of tax units with more than 24 weekly remunerative hours is approximately 17 million. Those shown in the table therefore represent under 3 per cent. of the total.

  Family Credit (Wales)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the cause of the low rate of claims for family credit in Wales; and what statistics he has collected on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An assessment of the reasons why people failed to claim family credit can be found in "Family Credit: The Strategic Development of the Spring 1989 Publicity Campaign: Research Summary" which has been placed in the Library by the Central Office of Information.

  Separate estimates of the eligible population, or the level of take up, are not available for Wales. At the beginning of April 1989 around 17,000 families in Wales were actually receiving family credit, but this does not include those who were still awaiting a decision on a claim and eventually received payment covering that date.

  Appeals
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average total cost to his Department of the administrative procedures which occur between a refusal of benefit by an adjudication officer and the implementation of a decision by the Social Security appeal tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A typical case where, for example, income support is refused by an adjudication officer and subsequently allowed by the Social Security appeal tribunal, will incur local office administrative costs of about £90. This figure excludes administrative costs incurred by the office of the president of Social Security appeal tribunals which are the responsibility of the President, His Honour Judge Byrt QC. The hon. Member may care to contact him direct for these details.

  EC (Meetings)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the European Community meetings on matters concerning his Department held in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Fraud
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of staff employed in his Department's benefit fraud investigations for each year from 1979 to the latest available year;
  311
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of prosecutions for social security benefit fraud for each of the years from 1979 to the most recent year for which figures are available;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the total amount of money lost through benefit fraud in 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise figures are not available, but it is possible to estimate the numbers of full-time equivalent posts on the basis of records of staff time expended on fraud-related work. The numbers of full-time equivalent posts each year since 1979 have been as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979–80

  2,311

  1980–81

  2,336

  1981–82

  2,346

  1982–83

  2,185

  1983–84

  2,211

  1984–85

  2,204

  1985–86

  2,285

  1986–87

  2,390

  1987–88

  2,724

  1988–89

  2,940

  Additional information requested is contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 31 January at column 192.

  Disability Provision (Employment Training)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether a person who is in receipt of disability provision would lose their entitlement on completion of an employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  Subject to satisfaction of the relevant eligibility criteria, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and the disability premium with income support can be paid during and after a period of employment training. Trainees who were receiving sickness benefit, invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance immediately before employment training can have their benefit reinstated as a linked claim if they are incapable of work and make the fresh claim within eight weeks of the end of training.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his statement on 24 April,Official Report, column 725, that £9 of every £10 of means-tested benefit reaches those to whom it is intended, he will list the total sum in public expenditure allocated to each of the main means-tested benefits administered by his Department; and if he will also list the sums paid out to claimants in the last relevant financial year.

  Mr. Scott
  The total sums allocated to each of the main income-related benefits for forward years and the latest estimates of the sums paid out to claimants in repect of these benefits in 1988–89, the last relevant financial year, are set out in table 15·1 of Cm 615.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library his 312
  calculations showing that the living standards of lone parents have risen by 10 per cent., couples with children by 9 per cent. and couples without children and single people by 6 per cent. over the period 1979 to 1985, as cited by him on 24 April, Official Report, column 725.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures refer to the incomes of households in the non-pensioner population. They are based on the total net incomes of individuals in households derived from all sources less income tax and national insurance. Incomes were adjusted for the differing sizes and compositions of households in order to make direct comparisions between the improvements in living standards of people with and without children. The esimates are based on the family expenditure survey and cover Great Britain as a whole.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Aberdare Department of Social Security offices were given for the social fund(a) in 1988–89 and (b) in 1989–90; whether this has increased in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The details of the social fund allocations are as follows:

  Loans

  Grants

  £

  £

  1988–89

  275,645

  117,197

  1989–90

  281,323

  123,789

  A note explaining the basis on which the social fund allocations for 1989–90 were calculated is in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of how many pensioners have(a) an occupational pension, (b) investment income and (c) both; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: In 1986 approximately 3·4 million (50 per cent.) pensioner tax units had an occupational pension, 4·7 million (70 per cent.) had investment income, and 2·8 million (40 per cent.) had both.

  Note: A pensioner tax unit is a single person of state pension age or over, or a couple where the man is of state pension age or over.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax (Dental Inputs)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of value added tax paid on dental inputs by general dental practitioners in England and Wales during the last three financial years.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Football Pools
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will earmark annually £100 million of the sum paid to
  313
  the Government in tax on football pools to a fund for the purpose of bringing about all-seater stadia at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Lilley
  In line with an established principle of the tax system, followed by successive Governments, and in the interests of efficient management of public expenditure, receipts from taxation are not hypothecated for particular purposes.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the savings would be of taxing child benefit for taxpayers at the 40 per cent. tax rate in 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue yield in 1989–90 from taxing child benefit at 40 per cent. for those married couples and single parents facing a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent. for that year is estimated to be about £140 million.

  Reply Paid Envelopes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was decided that those required to supply information to the commissioners of Inland Revenue using OHMS envelopes must affix postage stamps; when the use of reply paid envelopes was discontinued; and what publicity was given to this change.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 29 January 1988 at column 420 and to the Inland Revenue press release of that date.

  Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings in a full year at 1989–90 rates of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax; and if he will provide a breakdown by category of allowance and relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: Estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1989–90 levels of income from restricting the main income tax reliefs and allowances to the basic rate are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Personal allowances

  1,320

  (b) Mortgage interest relief

  430

  (c) Employees' superannuation and personal pension contributions

  200

  (d) Retirement annuity relief1

  100

  1 Including relief for retirement annuity payments made by employees.

  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the effects of restricting other smaller reliefs to the basic rate.

  The direct revenue yield from restricting all reliefs and allowances simultaneously to the basic rate is likely to be in the order of £2½ billion, somewhat more than the sum of the yields from restricting the reliefs and allowances separately; this is due to the cumulative effect of bringing more people into higher rate tax. About two thirds of those who would pay more tax as a result of this change are currently liable only at the basic rate. Estimates are
  314
  based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal income and are provisional. No account is taken of possible behavioural changes or the effect on receipts of capital gains tax.

  Housing (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when tax-free employer grants to employees moving to higher cost housing areas were introduced; what the largest allowable size of grant to qualify for tax exemption was in each tax year of operation; and if he will provide an estimate of the number of such tax-free grants made.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Subject to certain conditions, payments of this kind have never been regarded as taxable. To be tax-free payments must be spread over a number of years and not exceed, in total, a prescribed amount. Since 1 April 1987, the maximum amount payable tax-free has varied in line with the maximum amount payable under the Civil Service additional housing costs allowance. The relevant amounts are given in the table. I regret that estimates of the number of tax-exempt payments is not available.

  Moves on or after:

  Total payable tax-free

  £

  1 April 1987

  18,270

  1 June 1987

  17,220

  30 March 1988

  15,750

  1 October 1988

  20,160

  1 February 1989

  21,210

  Personal Borrowing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the level of personal sector bank borrowings, gross and net, in each year since 1983 in current and standard prices;

  (2) what was the personal sector consumer credit outstanding in each year since 1983 in current and standard prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for personal sector consumer credit outstanding and bank borrowing in current prices are available in Financial Statistics (tables 9.3 and 14.4). Figures for such debt measured in standard (ie. constant) prices are not published, and there is no unique, correct method of calculating them. But Economic Trends includes a number of price indices which could be combined with the current price data to provide estimates.

  Separate Taxation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that when husbands and wives are taxed separately there will be no adverse effect on elderly married pensioners caused by the abolition of the married personal allowance where the wife's only taxable income is her state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No elderly married couple will be worse off as a result of the changes to allowances when independent taxation of husbands and wives is introduced in April 1990. The allowances available to an elderly husband under the new system—the personal allowance
  315
  and the married couple's allowance—will be at least as great as the married age allowance which he is receiving at present, and the elderly wife will for the first time be entitled to an age-related personal allowance in her own right which she will be able to set against any of her income, from whatever source. In fact, over 85 per cent. of taxpaying elderly couples will pay less tax under independent taxation.

  Profit Sharing (Luton)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies in the Luton area which made a profit-sharing payment to their employees in 1988–89, showing in each case when the last such payment was made.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As information provided to the Inland Revenue about payments made by particular employers to their employees, whether under profit-related pay schemes or otherwise, is confidential, I regret I cannot publish the details requested.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to abolish the tax allowance for married couples and replace this with two single persons' allowances.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No. Under independent taxation, which begins in April 1990, both husband and wife will get their own personal allowance. The new system will continue to recognise marriage through the married couple's allowance, which will be given in the first instance to the husband. The personal allowance and the married couple's allowance will together be equivalent to the present married man's allowance.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the percentage and number of(a) basic rate taxpayers and (b) higher rate taxpayers participating in charity payroll giving in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that over 120,000 people were participating in the scheme at the end of 1988–89, but I regret that information on their marginal rate of tax is not available.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was remitted or written-off as irrecoverable in 1979 and 1987; and what was(a) the amount written-off and (b) the number of taxpayers for whom the ground for non-payment was (i) that they had gone abroad, (ii) that they were untraceable, (iii) insolvency and (iv) hardship.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total amounts of tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1979 and 1987 were:

  £ thousand

  1979

  60,310

  1987

  333,294

  316
  The amounts written off and number of taxpayers involved, where the grounds were (i) gone abroad, (ii) untraceable, (iii) insolvency and (iv) hardship were:

  £ thousand

  Taxpayers

  1979

  (i) Gone abroad

  4,631

  2,491

  (ii) Untraceable

  14,179

  23,680

  (iii) Insolvency

  32,564

  23,032

  (iv) Hardship

  1,108

  7,988

  1987

  (i) Gone abroad

  9,683

  2,678

  (ii) Untraceable

  51,448

  41,067

  (iii) Insolvency

  241,290

  68,868

  (iv) Hardship

  1,896

  6,907

  Taxable Income
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), 4 April,Official Report, columns 9–10, he will express the figures given of taxable income as a per capita and per taxpayer figure, and if in each case he will also express the county figures in rank order in an index form taking the national average to be 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: I regret that the sample size of the survey of personal incomes is not large enough to provide reliable comparisons amongst individual counties of income per head. The table therefore shows a regional analysis.

  Total Income1 liable to tax 1986–87

  Per taxpayer2

  per head of population at mid-1986

  Region

  £

  UK = 100

  £

  UK = 100

  North

  11,000

  95

  3,800

  92

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11,300

  98

  3,700

  91

  North West

  11,200

  97

  3,800

  93

  East Midlands

  11,000

  95

  3,800

  92

  West Midlands

  10,900

  94

  3,900

  94

  East Anglia

  11,400

  98

  3,900

  94

  South East

  12,600

  109

  4,800

  116

  South West

  11,200

  97

  4,000

  99

  Wales

  10,400

  90

  3,200

  78

  Scotland

  10,800

  94

  3,600

  88

  Northern Ireland

  10,700

  93

  2,900

  71

  United Kingdom

  11,500

  100

  4,100

  100

  1 Income liable to tax before deductions and personal allowances. The previous reply was in terms of taxable income—that is income liable to tax after deductions and allowances.

  2 Counting only those taxpayers whose incomes are large enough for them to be liable to tax.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimated income cost of the rebasing of capital gains tax to 1982 enacted in the Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: Updated estimates of the effect on receipts in 1989–90 are reductions of £55 million for capital gains tax and £250 million for corporation tax.

  Premium Bonds
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what public consultations were carried out by the director of savings prior to his decision to increase the minimum purchase of premium bonds from £10 to £100 and to abolish premium bond gift tokens;

  (2) what consultations he carried out regarding (a) the increase in the minimum purchase of premium bonds from £10 to £100 and (b) the abolition of the premium bond gift tokens.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: These decisions were taken by Treasury Ministers in the usual way. They keep the terms of all National Savings products under constant review, and make changes whenever they consider them necessary. Minimum purchases of £10 may still be made by parents, grandparents and guardians on behalf of children under 16.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the director of savings to defer to 1 January 1990 the increase in the minimum purchase of premium bonds from £10 to £100 and the abolition of premium bond gift tokens.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 April 1989]: No.

  Company Pension Funds
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of company pension fund contribution holidays in the United Kingdom in each of the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: Full information in the form requested is not available. Information from large self-administered pension schemes proposing contribution holidays to reduce surpluses following the legislation in the Finance Act 1986 is as follows:

  Schemes proposing a contribution holiday

  Number

  Amount (£ million)

  Schemes reporting in 1987–88

  67

  58

  Schemes reporting between April 1988 and January 1989

  157

  236

  Note:

  The figures represent the total amount of surplus to be eliminated by means of a contribution holiday by schemes which have reported in each period. The contribution holiday may be spread across several years. Schemes proposing a reduction in contributions rather than a contribution holiday are not included in the above.

  Percentage increase in real take home pay 1978–79 to 1989–901

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  Single person

  31

  34

  36

  40

  Married man with wife not in paid employment and 2 children3

  24

  28

  31

  36

  1 Financial year average of pre- and post-October regimes for employees' National Insurance Contributions, using illustrative growth rates between 1988–89 and 1989–90 of 7½ per cent, in average earnings and 6 per cent, in prices.

  2 Full time males on adult rates (all occupations).

  3 Children assumed to be under 11, and child benefit included in figures to allow comparison with 1978–79 when child tax allowances were still being phased out.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue makes use of the information from electoral registers for taxation purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: When appropriate the Inland Revenue uses the electoral register and other publicly available information in its efforts to ensure that everyone pays the right tax.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the advantages which would accrue to British industry by virtue of United Kingdom membership of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the speech which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham house on 25 January and to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) on 20 January 1989 at column 358.

  Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate for net disposal income after mortgage payments in each region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The most recently available figures are for 1986: these were given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 1 March 1988 at column 503. It is expected that the estimates for 1987 will he available in July.

  Standard of Living
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the increase in the standard of living of(a) a single man and (b) a married man with two children and a wife who is not in paid employment on (i) half average earnings, (ii) three-quarters average earnings, (iii) average earnings and (iv) one and a half times average earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: Latest estimates for increases in real take-home pay between 1978–79 and 1989–90 are given in the table.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 May, if he will express the value of North sea oil and gas revenues in fiscal years 1979–80 to 1988–89 in current prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The value of North sea oil and gas revenues given in the answer of 2 May was expressed in current prices. More detailed information on North sea oil and gas revenues is published by the Department of Energy in the annual Brown Book.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the distribution of the benefit of the proposed national insurance contribution changes amongst employees ranked into deciles of earnings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government Actuary's Department estimate that for 1990–91, the first full year for which the new contribution rates will apply, the decile of employees with the lowest earnings will gain £80 million. The second lowest decile will gain £120 million. The remaining eight deciles will each gain £325 million; a total gain for all employees of £2·8 billion.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions in the past 12 months have received the answer that the requested information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware three questions addressed to me within the past 12 months have fallen into the disproportionate cost category.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish a table showing the works of art, objects or artefacts currently on loan from public galleries and museums at(a) Lancaster house, (b) Dorney Wood, (e) the Chevening estate and (d) Chequers.

  The Prime Minister
  The furnishings and other contents of Lancaster house are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and of the houses at Dorney Wood, Chevening and Chequers of the relevant trust bodies.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 2 May,Official Report column 16, if she will make a statement setting out the procedures which she has advised her Ministers to follow after the passing of the Single European Act to prevent (a) an undue volume of community directives, (b) harmonisation measures regarded by Her Majesty's Government as unnecessary and (c) the extension of the powers of the Commission beyond those envisaged by Her Majesty's Government when the Single Act was approved.
  320
  The Prime Minister
  I shall ensure that the Government will continue to examine very carefully all proposals for EC legislation, to ensure that they are necessary to achieve the aims and objectives of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act and that they fall within agreed Community competence.

  Government Information Officers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the text of Mr. Ingham's letter to Ms. Elizabeth Jenkins on a code of ethics for Government information officers.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Government Agencies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Miniser if she will list all Government agencies(a) which individuals can join as members and (b) which seek sponsorship from private companies.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he intends to make for general practitioners to attend suitable courses in business management to enable them to implement the relevant proposals in the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We shall be bringing forward proposals in due course to enable eligible general practitioners who opt to have practice budgets to ensure that the practice has the necessary management skills available to it.

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what adjustments he intends to make to the concept of indicative drug budgets to ensure that general practitioners who have high cost patients, such as the elderly and the chronic sick, on their practice lists are not financially penalised for prescribing treatment.

  Mr. Mellor
  The amount allocated to a practice for its indicative prescribing budget will fully reflect the presence on the practice's list of patients, such as the elderly and the chronic sick, who need a greater volume of drugs or more expensive drugs than others. No doctor will be penalised for prescribing necessary treatment to any patient. We expect doctors to examine their prescribing patterns to ensure that they prescribe only when and for as long as necessary and, where there is a choice of equally effective products, to prescribe the cheapest.

  Medical Accidents
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why information on awards to victims of medical accidents in respect of health authorities in England is not held centrally; and if he has any plans to gather such information.
  321
  Mr. Freeman
  Awards for medical accidents in excess of £100,000 are notified to the Department. Awards below that figure fall within the delegated limits for authorities and are not notified separately to the centre. The Department is considering whether further information about medical accidents is needed and if so how it may be obtained.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to issue further advice to health authorities concerning appropriate action to be taken towards patients alleging medical accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Action in response to complaints by patients (including allegations about treatment and medical accidents) should be taken in accordance with directions issued with circular HC(88)37 on hospital complaints procedures. No further advice is contemplated.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to review the weight given to the interests of patients in relation to negotiations between health authorities and medical insurance organisations in the event of medical accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Negotiations between health authorities and medical defence organisations occur only when there is a prospect of a successful civil claim by a patient against a health authority or a medical practitioner represented by a medical defence organisation in respect of a medical accident. These negotiations are currently regulated by the terms of the agreement contained in memorandum HM(54)32. In such matters I would expect the best interests of the litigant patient to be protected by his or own legal advisors.

  However we are currently consulting interested organisations on proposals whereby health authorities would indemnify medical and dental staff working in the NHS. This would bring them into line with other NHS staff who are already so covered. It is proposed that henceforth there will be no need for clinicians to be independently insured and therefore represented by medical defence organisations (although some may still wish to do so). This will necessarily involve review of the

  19831

  19841

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  United Kingdom usage of imported factor VIII concentrate (millions of international units

  39·5

  38·5

  50·9

  53·8

  59·2

  n/a

  Percentage of total United Kingdom usage of factor VIII concentrate

  56·8

  48·9

  68·8

  63·1

  69·5

  1 Does not include users with acquired haemophilia.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in considering the issue of self-governing status in respect of hospitals falling within the Islington district, what degree of priority he will attach to(a) the views of the chairman of the district health authority and (b) the voted views of the district health authority, the community health council, and the consultants at the respective hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  When I come to consider individual applications, I aim to take proper account of the views of all those with an interest.
  322
  HM(54)32 agreement and in this regard my hon. Friend may be assured that the interests of NHS patients will be fully taken into account.

  Operating Department Assistants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the National Health Service Training Authority to report on competence based training for operating department assistants.

  Mr. Mellor
  The NHSTA has outlined a preliminary schedule of competences for operating department assistants which has been circulated for consultation. Work on a proposal to take forward the development of a national vocational qualification for operating department assistants is planned to start next month.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the volume and value of blood products imported and (b) the percentage of the total blood products supply in the United Kingdom that comes from imports in each year since 1983; and whether any checks are made as to whether such products originate from blood that is sold rather than donated.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information held centrally about the level of imported blood products relates only to factor VIII concentrate and is given in the table.

  Blood products imported into the United Kingdom are sourced from both blood that has been donated and purchased. The manufacturing sites of overseas manufacturers of licensed blood products (imported into the United Kingdom) are routinely inspected by or on behalf of the medicines inspectorate of the medicines control agency. One aim of these inspections is to ensure that the blood used is of good quality and is acceptable for use in the manufacture of the products concerned. Furthermore, samples of all commercially imported batches of blood products are routinely submitted to the national institute for biological standards and control for testing to ensure that they conform to laid down standards of quality.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the list of hospitals that each regional health authority has proposed to become self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  RHAs are still receiving and considering expressions of interest from hospitals. They have been asked to submit these to the Department by 31 May.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made to(a) family practitioner committees and (b) the General Medical

  323
  Council regarding the prescribing of benzodiazepine drugs for periods of time greater than those recommended by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. The right hon. Member may wish to contact the General Medical Council direct.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South of 26 April,Official Report, column 552, if he will commission a sample survey to discover how many of the 23,185,000 prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed in 1987 were repeat prescriptions being given on a long or medium-term basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have made every effort to ensure that doctors are aware of the problems which can arise from prolonged treatment with these drugs and to encourage good prescribing habits. In addition, the most recent guidance from the Committee on Safety of Medicines issued in January 1988 is repeated in the twice-yearly British National Formulary. It is now up to all doctors using their clinical judgment to take heed of this advice when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual patient. A survey of repeat prescriptions would not be of additional value.

  Nurses
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) state registered nurses, (b) state enrolled nurses and (c) auxiliary nurses are employed in each health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 16 January at columns 115–118 for the information for England.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretry of State for Health if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that elderly persons in residential care are encouraged and enabled to manage their own finances whenever possible rather than being made to surrender their pension books and personal allowances.

  Mr. Mellor
  I agree that people in residential care homes should be encouraged to manage their own financial affairs whenever they are capable of doing so. We are considering whether guidance should be issued on the conduct of residents' financial affairs, taking into account the recommendations in the Wagner report on residential care.

  GPs (Overprescribing)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretry of State for Health how many investigations of general practitioners for overprescribing have taken place in England since the National Health Service Committee Tribunal Regulations (S.I. 1974 No. 455) came into effect.

  Mr. Mellor
  There have been no referrals under Regulation 16 of the NHS (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations since 1974.

  Support Tights
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make support tights available on prescription in addition to support stockings.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. I am satisfied that the present prescribable range of support stockings fully meets the clinical needs of most patients who require compression hosiery. If the equivalent tights were made available on GP prescription it would add to NHS costs without benefit to patients.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of inward investment in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Wales continues to attract very high levels of inward investment. In terms of related new jobs, Wales' share of inward investment to the United Kingdom was 20 per cent. in 1987. The provisional figures for 1988 indicate that this has increased to 22 per cent. This compares with 6 per cent. in 1979. Projects secured from abroad and the United Kingdom in 1988 promise over 11,000 new jobs and nearly I.2 billion of capital investment.

  Committee of Welsh District Councils
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Association of District Councils in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the Committee of Welsh District Councils at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government finance on 8 December to discuss the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1989–90.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department is doing to promote energy conservation in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's energy efficiency plan for 1989 is published today, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Prince of Wales Orthopaedic Hospital, Rhydlafar
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future of the children's ward at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, South Glamorgan

  Mr. Grist
  We have received eight representations concerning the future of the ward.

  British Coal
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss matters relating to its operations in Wales.
  325
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am in regular touch with the chairman of British Coal on matters relating to the corporation's operations in Wales.

  Development Control
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what planning guidelines his Department intends to use for development control.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office continues to have regard to the planning guidance contained in planning policy and minerals planning guidance notes, departmental circulars and development control policy notes.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what existing or interim arrangements there are for providing medium-secure facilities for psychiatric patients from Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Secure facilities are available at Whitchurch hospital, Cardiff and North Wales hospital, Denbigh. Patients may also be referred to hospitals in England. Plans for four purpose-built medium secure units have been announced and discussions are in progress for the development of the first two. Arrangements are in hand to appoint the consultant forensic psychiatrist who, with the senior nurse already in post, will have a major role in planning and running the units.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the problem of acid rain in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, and organisations such as the Welsh water authority, the Wales tourist board, Snowdonia national park, the Country Landowners Association. Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Wales Green party and indvidual members of the public.

  North Wales (Strategy)
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made in developing a strategy for North Wales following the Minister of State's examination of the implications of the completion of the A55.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am engaged in a series of meetings with the local authorities, which I hope to complete during the summer, to discuss opportunities in tourism, commerce and industry and how these can best be tackled.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the total number employed in Wales during the past two years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Between December 1986 and December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, the civilian work force in employment in Wales increased by 35,000. There have also been increases in the self-employed and those in higher education.

  Epilepsy Association
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Welsh Office received a grant application from the Wales Epilepsy Association; whether a reply has been sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  An application for grant made under section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968 was received from the Wales Epilepsy Association in November 1988. The application was considered along with bids for funding under this section of the Act received from other voluntary organisations, and a reply was sent to the association on 3 May 1989.

  Quarrying (Taff Ely)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy not to sanction any new quarrying in and around Taff Ely which might result in the despoilation of the remaining ridges, skylines, visible hillsides and forests of that area.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend can give no assurances relating to decisions which he may have to take in any particular area. General planning principles and policy considerations for mineral workings are described in mineral planning guidance note No. 1, issued jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment in January 1988.

  Public Houses (Tenancies)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the recommendations of the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewing industry on the livelihood of sitting tenants of public houses in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer in the United Kingdom made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the position of tenants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he is minded to implement the recommendations. He has also indicated that he is willing to receive representations on matters of concern.

  Coal Imports
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the quantity of United States coal which has been imported via Newport docks and on its final destination.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This is an operational matter for the importer, in this case the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am, however, aware of the board's announcement on 17 April of its intention to import 35,000 tonnes of American coal into Newport docks for trans-shipment to its Aberthaw power station.

  River Taff (Pollution)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has assessed the extent to which the Welsh water authority's treatment plants in the Mid-Glamorgan area have been contributors to the accumulation of pollution and litter in the River Taff and its tributaries over the past three years.
  327
  Mr. Grist
  No such assessment has been made.

  A470-Porth Link Road
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress of the planned restructuring-refurbishment of the A473-A4058 link road between the A470 and Porth in Rhondda.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Mid Glamorgan county council as local highway authority.

  Welsh Water Authority (Monitoring Building)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum has been allocated by the Welsh Office to help the Welsh water authority construct a reinforced, bunkered monitoring building at its south-eastern division headquarters at Nelson, Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has undertaken to make a grant of £279,959 towards the cost of construction of the control and command centre at Nelson.

  Heads of the Valleys Road
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to authorise the upgrading to dual-carriageway status of the whole length of the Heads of the Valleys trunk road.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Traffic flows on the Heads of the Valleys road are well within the road's capacity. Trends in traffic growth will be kept under review.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to agree to any investment proposals by British Rail to upgrade its Reading-Redhill-Ashford line in order to provide south Wales with a direct, high-speed rail access for passengers and freight to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. British Rail has not yet made proposals to the Government for Channel tunnel passenger and freight services. Careful consideration will be given to its proposals at the appropriate time.

  Severn Crossing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that a second crossing of the Severn will be in place by 1995.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Subject to the present excellent rate of progress being maintained by the Department of Transport, a second crossing could be completed in 1995. My right hon. Friend will continue to give this important project his full support.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of overseas investment into the United Kingdom Wales currently receives.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In terms of related new jobs, Wales' share of inward investment was 20 per cent. in 1987. The provisional figures for 1988 indicate that this has increased to 22 per cent. This compares with 6 per cent. in 1979.

  Beaches
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that beaches in Wales meet the European Community standards of cleanliness.

  Mr. Grist
  None. There are no European Community standards of cleanliness for beaches.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost of each of (a) Colwyn bay and (b) Inmel bay of (i) a long sea outfall, (ii) full sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall and (iii) full sewage treatment works with a long sea outfall to enable them to comply with European Economic Community bathing water directive 76/160/EEC; and when the appropriate solution will be put in place giving the estimated date of commencement and completion.

  Mr. Grist
  The authority is currently reviewing its programme of works, which aims to achieve compliance of all listed waters. The full cost of the programme has yet to be evaluated. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the waters at Colwyn bay have complied with the standards of the directive over the past three years.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the detailed coliform and E. coli results of all samples collected in the summer of 1988 for each of the 48 beaches summarised in deposited document NS 4754.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is contained on the public registers maintained by the Welsh water authority.

  Young Farmers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the assistance which his Department makes to help young farmers.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Young farmers (under 40) with an approved improvement plan under the farm and conservation grant scheme can qualify for a 25 per cent. increase in the total grant they receive. In addition officers of the agricultural development and advisory service are always ready to help young farmers who need advice.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give by area the number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reported in each of the past three years and the number reported in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county in Wales during 1987, 1988 and 1989 (to 28 April) was:

  County

  Number of cases

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  0

  13

  19

  Dyfed

  8

  64

  79

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  5

  5

  South Glamorgan

  0

  8

  9

  West Glamorgan

  0

  1

  1

  Gwent

  0

  20

  24

  329

  County

  Number of cases

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Gwynedd

  0

  7

  8

  Powys

  0

  13

  10

  1988

  1989

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Clwyd

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  3

  1

  3

  4

  2

  10

  Dyfed

  5

  3

  2

  15

  12

  3

  9

  13

  10

  20

  20

  29

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1

  South Glamorgan

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  2

  3

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  1

  1

  0

  3

  4

  0

  3

  5

  4

  9

  4

  7

  Gwynedd

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Powys

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  5

  1

  0

  2

  3

  2

  3

  Farm and Conservation Grant
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that farmers can obtain application forms for the new farm and conservation grant.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Application forms to join the farm and conservation grant scheme are held by the divisional offices of WOAD. Claim forms are currently being printed and are expected to be available from the divisional offices this week.

  Land (Planning Permission)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the amount of land for which planning permission is granted but on which no subsequent development takes place within the permitted time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of applications for regional selective assistance received between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, (b) the number of the above applications that have been processed and (c) the total amount of money paid out in that period.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Two hundred and sixty-five applications for regional selective assistance grants were received by my Department and 202 of these processed in the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989. The total amount of grant paid out over the same period was £36·2 million1.

  Note: 1 RSA project and training grants.

  Innovation Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total number of applications received for innovation grants from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for that period and the estimated expenditure for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the regional enterprise grant scheme 120 applications for innovation projects were received by my Department and 31 offers of grant to the value of £598,165 were made in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.
  330
  There were no reported cases in 1986.

  The number of reported cases in Wales in each of the past 12 months is as follows:

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 March 1989 for details of planned and future expenditure provision.

  Investment Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total number of applications received for investment grants from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for that period and the estimated expenditure for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the regional enterprise grant scheme 319 applications for investment projects were received by my Department and 135 offers of grant to the value of £818,460 were made in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 March 1989 for details of planned and future expenditure provision.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of applications for regional development grants outstanding on 31 March 1988, (b) the number of those outstanding applications that have subsequently been processed, (c) the number of applications that are still outstanding and (d) the total amount of money paid out in regional development grants to those applicants.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All 1,935 applications for revised regional development grant (RDG II) outstanding on 31 March 1988 have been actioned, and decisions had been made on 1,855 by 31 March 1989 leaving a balance of 80. Payments authorised on these applications total £14·8 million. Total expenditure on RDG II during the 1988–89 financial year was £45 million.

SCOTLAND

  Social Security (Glasgow, Provan)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will restore in 1989 moneys the budgets of the Department of Social Security offices in Glasgow, Provan to 1988–89 levels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.
  331
  No. Allocations were made in accordance with a national allocation formula which applied to all local offices. A note explaining the basis on which the 1989–90 allocations were calculated is in the Library.

  The allocations of both Glasgow, Provan and Glasgow, Parkhead local offices represent £114 per head of their respective income support caseloads compared with the average allocation per head for Great Britain of £46.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact upon the number of trees planted of the 1988 Budget and the ending of schedule D reliefs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many trees have been planted (a) in the last year and (b) in the 10 years before the 1988 Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The amount of tree planting grant aided by the Forestry Commission since 1979 is shown in the following table. As the figures for the year to 31 March 1989 include a substantial amount of planting which was carried out before the 1988 Budget, or subsequently with the benefit of transitional tax reliefs, it is too early to say what impact the changes made in that Budget will have on planting levels.

  Area (Thousands of hectares)

  Year ending 31 March

  New planting

  Restocking

  1979

  8

  3

  1980

  8

  3

  1981

  8

  3

  Table 1

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials at outturn prices

  Books

  Education tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  4·54

  8·31

  7·27

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  5·49

  9·61

  11·25

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980·81

  5·84

  9·29

  12·20

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  6·54

  9·77

  12·17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  7·03

  10·03

  13·64

  8·18

  27·33

  48·46

  1983–84

  8·99

  13·35

  22·64

  7·28

  25·36

  42·11

  1984–85

  9·55

  13·83

  21·41

  8·91

  30·09

  57·77

  1985–86

  8·91

  13·47

  21·37

  8·33

  30·26

  53·42

  1986–87

  10·93

  16·67

  22·22

  8·92

  33·85

  61·98

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  17·42

  11·71

  44·42

  77·58

  Table 2

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator

  Books

  Education tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978·79

  9·28

  16·98

  14·85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979·80

  9·62

  16·83

  19·71

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980·81

  8·63

  13·73

  18·03

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981·82

  8·80

  13·15

  16·38

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  8·84

  12·61

  17·15

  10·28

  34·36

  60·93

  1983–84

  10·80

  16·04

  27·20

  8·75

  30·47

  50·60

  1984–85

  10·93

  15·84

  24·51

  10·20

  34·45

  66·15

  1985–86

  9·67

  14·62

  23·20

  9·04

  32·85

  57·99

  1986–87

  11·48

  17·51

  23·34

  9·37

  35·55

  65·09

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  17·42

  11·71

  44·42

  77·58

  332

  Area (Thousands of hectares)

  Year ending 31 March

  New planting

  Restocking

  1982

  12

  3

  1983

  13

  3

  1984

  17

  3

  1985

  16

  3

  1986

  19

  4

  1987

  19

  4

  1988

  24

  5

  11989

  25

  5

  1 Estimate.

  Schools (Books and Equipment)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on(a) books and (b) equipment and comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in cash and real terms using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is given in the following tables which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on equipment was not separately identified in these returns until 1982–83. There have been some variations from year to year in the recording of expenditure under these two headings. In particular some of the figures for expenditure on library books may include some expenditure on items of equipment.
  333

  Table 3: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books at outturn prices expressed as an index with 1978–79 = 100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  120·9

  115·6

  154·7

  1980–81

  128·6

  111·8

  167·8

  1981–82

  144·1

  117·6

  167·4

  1982–83

  154·8

  120·7

  187·6

  1983–84

  198·0

  160·6

  311·4

  1984–85

  210·4

  166·4

  294·5

  1985–86

  196·3

  162·1

  293·9

  1986–87

  240·7

  200·6

  305·6

  1987–88

  203·7

  155·6

  239·6

  Table 4: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator, expressed as an index with 1978–79=100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  103·

  99·1

  132·7

  1980–81

  93·0

  80·9

  121·4

  1981–82

  94·8

  77·4

  110·3

  1982–83

  95·3

  74·3

  115·5

  1983–84

  116·4

  94·5

  183·2

  1984–85

  117·8

  93·3

  165·1

  1985–86

  104·2

  86·1

  156·2

  1986–87

  123·7

  103·1

  157·2

  1987–88

  99·7

  76·1

  117·3

  Note:

  Tables 3 and 4 do not include expenditure by authorities on educational tools, equipment and materials from 1982–83 as shown in tables 1 and 2.

  Private Roads
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department intends to implement the recommendation in the Stodart report that private roads which form part of a public highway network should be taken over by the highways authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Cognisance has already been taken of the recommendation of the Stodart report in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I shall write to the hon. Member explaining the details of this.

  SSHA (Rent Increase)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he recommended a minimum rent increase of 9·74 per cent. for tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association, Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State recommended a minimum average rent increase of £1·80 per week, which was a 9·55 per cent. increase, to the Scottish Special Housing Association. This recommendation was based on projections of costs and income and was set at a level which would sustain a reasonable level of repairs and maintenance of the stock. It was for the association's council of management to decide on the actual rent increase.

  Adam House, Edinburgh
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the ownership and state of repair of the Adam house, Mavisbank, in Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that ownership of Mavisbank house is shared jointly by three 334
  citizens of the United States of America. The house is presently derelict. Emergency works were carried out in 1987, at public expense, to safeguard the stability of the house.

  Social Work Department (Strathclyde Region)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Strathclyde region social work department; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such meetings have been requested or held.

  Nurses
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) state registered nurses, (b) state enrolled nurses and (c) auxiliary nurses are employed in each health board in Scotland.

  Nursing staff employed by Health Boards 30 September 1988 (provisional)

  Whole-time equivalent

  Health Board

  State registered1

  Enrolled

  Auxiliary2

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,843·6

  705·4

  1,629·2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,376·3

  589·2

  1,005·1

  Borders

  501·6

  163·5

  344·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  811·3

  260·7

  519·9

  Fife

  1,339·3

  731·3

  931·1

  Forth Valley

  1,350·0

  474·0

  1,247·0

  Grampian

  2,343·6

  1,079·5

  1,611·1

  Greater Glasgow

  6,102·6

  2,081·9

  4,028·1

  Highland

  1,153·1

  328·3

  545·6

  Lanarkshire

  2,074·7

  1,178·0

  1,289·0

  Lothian

  3,998·6

  1,187·4

  2,360·7

  Orkney

  67·6

  72·0

  35·5

  Shetland

  102·5

  51·7

  41·8

  Tayside

  2,327·2

  1,120·0

  1,615·5

  Western Isles

  179·1

  27·8

  59·7

  1 Includes teaching and administrative nurses.

  2 Includes all unqualified nursing staff.

  Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund moneys in respect of the various schemes from 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of contributions and receipts in 1988–89 will be presented to Parliament later this year in the appropriation accounts for expenditure class XVI relating to agricultural support for which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has responsibility. Provisional outturn figures for the year are set out in the table. To these amounts should be added the Scottish share of market support expenditure incurred by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce which in the United Kingdom in 1988–89 is currently estimated to be £984 million.

  £ million

  1. Reimbursement schemes

  Capital Grants/Farm Structure

  2·691

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  10·146

  335

  £ million

  Integrated Development Programme for the Western Isles

  0·796

  Fish Producers' Organisations

  —

  Marketing and Processing Projects

  2·380

  Fishery Projects

  3·375

  19·388

  2. Pre-funded schemes

  Annual Ewe Premium

  28·684

  Suckler Cow Premium

  6·706

  Non-Marketing of Milk

  —

  Milk Outgoers

  6·293

  Cereal Co-responsibility Levy Refunds

  0·723

  42·406

  Overall total

  61·794

  GPs (Overprescribing)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions of general practitioners for overprescribing have taken place in Scotland by the health board in the last(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Financial penalties for over-prescribing are normally imposed by health boards on general practitioners only where advice and guidance have failed to have effect. Such penalties have been imposed in four cases in the last five years, in nine cases in the last 10 years and in 12 cases in the last 15 years.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to assist local authorities to extend the provision of pre-school education to children in their area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The planning figure for nursery education included in the revenue support grant settlement has been increased by almost 15 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1989–90. It is, however, for local authorities to determine the level of provision of nursery education in their area in the light of local need and competing priorities.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the proportion of children aged three years and four years who are in receipt of local authority provided nursery education in each islands and regional council in Scotland; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 17 January at column 62.

  Buses (Privatisation)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authority bus groups public limited companies are still under the ownership of the regional councils in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The bus companies concerned are Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd, Strathclyde Buses Ltd and Lothian Region Transport plc.
  336
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to require local authority bus public limited companies to introduce schemes to encourage the privatisation of their respective companies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The Government wish to encourage local authorities to privatise their bus companies. The possibility of seeking statutory powers to require them to do so has not been ruled out.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give assistance to the employees and management of the Tayside bus groups in its scheme to privatise the groups, along the lines of that provided to the Scottish bus groups.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The arrangements for any proposed sale of Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd are a matter for Tayside regional council. My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility is limited to approving any such sale.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy at the next Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting to take steps to initiate a European study on the effects of sea rise from the greenhouse global warming effect on low-lying agricultural land.

  Mr. Ryder
  Atmospheric warming is of global significance and there will be a range of consequences. The effect on low-lying agricultural land is one of the many aspects which will need to be studied. But research into the greenhouse effect is still at a relatively early stage, and specialised studies such as this will be more appropriate later on.

  For the moment there are several international studies and conferences taking place. For example, the United Kingdom is a participatory member of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a worldwide organisation which is studying all aspects of global warming, and we are a party to joint studies with European researchers to investigate the potential effects to the coastline of a rise in sea level.

  Quality of Life
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries if he will set out in the Official Report details of the policies introduced by him since 1983 with the intention of improving the quality of life for farming communities.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since 1983 we have introduced a wide range of measures, including those set out below, intended to further the interests of farming communities as a whole. Some measures have been designed with more remote rural areas in mind.

  There have been a number of important changes in capital grant schemes since 1983. These were designed to increase assistance for investments which have a positive impact on the farm environment and the wider rural economy. On 1 December 1983 grants for hedge and

  337
  shelter belt planting and traditional wall building were increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the less-favoured areas, while grants for hedge removal were withdrawn.

  The agriculture improvement scheme, introduced on 1 October 1985, extended higher rates of grant to environmental improvements in the lowlands. It also offered grants of 60 per cent. in the LFAs, and 30 per cent. elsewhere, for the installation and upgrading of facilities to prevent farm pollution.

  The farm and conservation grant scheme introduced on 20 February 1989 extended the range of conservation items to include repairs to traditional buildings and the regeneration of heather moors and native woodlands. Lowland grants for facilities to handle farm effluent were increased to 50 per cent.

  The farm diversification grant scheme introduced on 1 January 1988 offers grants of 25 per cent. towards the capital costs of establishing a wide range of diversified non-agricultural businesses on farms. These can bring additional employment to farmers and their families as well as broadening the farm income base.

  Since 1987 we have established 10 environmentally sensitive areas in England, covering over 300,000 hectares of land. There are now 19 ESAs in the United Kingdom covering over 790,000 hectares. This represents a considerable commitment to helping to protect some of the most beautiful parts of the country. The voluntary scheme, which encourages environmentally beneficial agricultural practices, has been very popular among farmers in the designated areas and was warmly welcomed by the countryside agencies.

  The farm woodland scheme launched on 1 October 1988 has several objectives, including the creation of an alternative source of income and rural employment, and the provision of environmental benefits. Initial take-up of the scheme has been very encouraging with over 5,700 hectares worth of applications in the first six months.

  The set-aside scheme, introduced last year, offers support for producers reducing surplus production and new land-use opportunities for the enterprising farmer. The set-aside scheme also contains a good deal for the environment. There are statutory rules for the maintenance of land fallowed under set-aside designed to keep it in good condition and minimise the risk of nitrate leaching. Only some pesticides and fertilisers can be used and only then in special circumstances. Environmental features like trees, hedges and watercourses must be maintained.

  The agricultural holdings legislation underwent major changes in 1984 following lengthy consultation with the industry. A new rent formula was introduced, statutory succession was ended for new tenancies and a number of other technical changes were made.

  We have negotiated improvements in the EC milk quota system allowing producers greater flexibility to make use of available quota by leasing arrangements and

  Number of confirmed cases of BSE by month of confirmation

  1988

  1989

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Bedfordshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  3

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  2

  1

  Essex

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  338
  other means. In conjunction with prudent market management measures, quota restraints have contributed towards the recent recovery in dairy farm incomes.

  In 1984 we extended the less-favoured areas by 1·2 million hectares. As a result 26,550 holdings became eligible for hill livestock compensatory allowances and enhanced rates of capital grant. As part of the 1989–90 price fixing it was agreed that all milk producers in less-favoured areas should not pay the milk co-responsibility levy.

  Pigs (Sweat Box System)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had as a result of the Farm Animals Welfare Council's recommendations banning the sweat box system for keeping pigs; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government consulted a wide range of interested organisations on this and other recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on pig production systems, and took account of their comments in preparing their response, which was published in March. We shall be seeking to have a ban implemented on a European Community basis.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his replies of Thursday 27 April,Official Report, column 678, and Friday 14 April, Official Report, column 748, to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, why information concerning ante-mortem inspections of cattle is not available for 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of' cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy identified at markets and slaughterhouses is monitored but the information is not held centrally at present. We are making arrangements to do so and will let the hon. Member have the information requested when it is available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about increasing the compensation for bovine spongiform encephalopathy from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a number of representations seeking an increase in the level of compensation. I believe however that compensation of 50 per cent. is fair, given that the animals are suffering from a terminal illness and are, for practical purposes, valueless but are in fact valued as if unaffected by the disease.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give by area the number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalophathy reported in each of the past three years and the number reported in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested for England, broken down by county, is as follows:
  339

  1988

  1989

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Lincolnshire

  5

  0

  2

  3

  1

  6

  4

  5

  6

  4

  4

  2

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  0

  8

  0

  2

  5

  3

  12

  6

  11

  6

  Northamptonshire

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  |

  0

  4

  2

  4

  4

  7

  Suffolk

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  7

  7

  1

  7

  6

  7

  6

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  3

  7

  8

  3

  1

  5

  6

  0

  6

  9

  Derbyshire

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  8

  5

  2

  3

  6

  3

  11

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  1

  2

  1

  6

  2

  9

  6

  7

  15

  9

  11

  19

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  7

  7

  10

  4

  5

  9

  11

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  10

  11

  8

  7

  14

  11

  13

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Shropshire

  2

  0

  7

  3

  11

  4

  4

  9

  16

  5

  10

  16

  Staffordshire

  2

  0

  2

  2

  5

  4

  4

  14

  9

  1

  7

  16

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  |

  0

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  0

  2

  5

  3

  2

  13

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  2

  0

  0

  7

  4

  5

  4

  13

  10

  3

  4

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  Humberside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  2

  0

  3

  3

  Northumberland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  6

  0

  7

  1

  North Yorkshire

  0

  1

  3

  8

  13

  9

  11

  7

  16

  14

  15

  11

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  91

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Berkshire

  3

  0

  1

  6

  3

  1

  6

  1

  11

  2

  3

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  4

  2

  3

  Hampshire

  5

  2

  2

  5

  11

  17

  14

  15

  28

  45

  28

  23

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  4

  2

  2

  3

  Kent

  2

  0

  1

  8

  1

  3

  4

  8

  20

  23

  20

  14

  Oxfordshire

  2

  0

  1

  6

  3

  5

  11

  4

  6

  17

  13

  12

  Surrey

  2

  0

  1

  2

  1

  5

  5

  8

  8

  5

  7

  2

  East Sussex

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  4

  5

  5

  5

  8

  4

  8

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  2

  7

  5

  14

  7

  17

  19

  15

  17

  12

  Avon

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  2

  3

  7

  4

  18

  9

  Cornwall

  26

  12

  12

  18

  14

  27

  22

  45

  48

  55

  55

  34

  Devon

  6

  28

  14

  20

  28

  26

  55

  25

  74

  63

  73

  79

  Dorset

  1

  4

  4

  5

  14

  29

  18

  24

  36

  70

  61

  47

  Gloucestershire

  0

  4

  1

  8

  5

  21

  15

  11

  33

  22

  15

  16

  Somerset

  0

  3

  4

  10

  14

  31

  18

  19

  42

  36

  43

  41

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  2

  14

  6

  17

  20

  16

  39

  44

  38

  39

  Number of confirmed cases of BSE by year of confirmation

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  6

  Essex

  0

  0

  5

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  8

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  28

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  18

  Northants

  0

  0

  11

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  28

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  36

  Derby

  0

  0

  22

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  4

  40

  Lancashire

  0

  1

  38

  Lincolnshire

  0

  2

  39

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  2

  6

  Salop

  0

  0

  51

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  37

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  2

  Warwick

  0

  0

  13

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  30

  Durham

  0

  0

  3

  Humber

  0

  0

  6

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  10

  Yorkshire North

  0

  1

  61

  Yorkshire South

  0

  0

  2

  Yorkshire West

  0

  0

  10

  Berkshire

  0

  2

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  2

  15

  Hampshire

  0

  2

  82

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  9

  Kent

  5

  11

  40

  Oxon

  0

  0

  36

  Surrey

  0

  1

  28

  Sussex East

  0

  2

  21

  Sussex West

  0

  2

  61

  340

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Avon

  0

  3

  16

  Cornwall

  0

  16

  216

  Devon

  0

  33

  248

  Dorset

  0

  0

  103

  Gloucestershire

  0

  3

  84

  Somerset

  1

  8

  127

  Wiltshire

  0

  6

  86

  Stickler Cow Premium
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the raising of the suckler cow premium to the level of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received numerous representations urging payment of the suckler cow premium at the maximum permissible amount (which would include both the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund contribution and the discretionary contribution from national funds).

  These representations have been carefully considered and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to make an announcement about the amount of the Government's contribution to the new suckler cow premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  An announcement on the rate of the suckler cow premium will be made before the start of the new scheme year on 15 June.

TRANSPORT

  Detonators and Explosives (Transport)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to strengthen the law as it relates to the transportation of detonators and high explosives in the same vehicle on roads in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 4 April, at columns 66–67.

  The new Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations were laid before Parliament on II April and come into force on 3 July this year.

  Western Environmental Improvement Route
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made, or will make, an environmental impact assessment on the western environment improvement route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No decision will he taken on the western environmental improvement route until the west London assessment study has been completed later this year. If it is then decided to proceed with the scheme, an environmental assessment will be produced in accordance with the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (S.1. 1988/1241).

  NERC (Research Projects)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the research projects undertaken for his Department by the Natural Environment Research Council during the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many road accidents, for each of the last five years, mobile car telephones have been a contributory factor.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available. One case has been brought to our attention in recent correspondence where the use of an in-car telephone may have been a contributory factor. The guidance in the Highway Code is clear—do not use a hand-held phone while driving.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions there have been for road traffic offences connected with the use of mobile car telephones.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987 over 87,500 motorists were found guilty of careless driving. Information is not available on how many of these offences involved the use of in-car telephones.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the regulations covering the emission of fumes from vehicle exhausts; and if he has any proposals to review them.
  342
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The regulations and relevant amendments are:

  Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 1078), Regulation 61.

  Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988 No. 1524).

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982 No. 1271), Regulation 4.

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 697).

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 427).

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987 No. 1508).

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988 No. 1523)
  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 981), Regulation 4.

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987 No. 1509).

  Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988 No. 1522).

  We shall amend the regulations to enforce the provisions of Community Directives 88/77/EEC and 88/436/EEC.

  Tighter standards for all categories of vehicle are still under negotiation in the Community. When these are agreed, we shall make further amendments to the regulations.

  Parkland Walk, Hornsey
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received opposing the Ove Arup suggestions for use of the Parkland walk, Hornsey, as a roadway; and at what rate per week such letters are currently being received.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Many. The weekly rate varies. There is, too, opposition to the re-use of the rail line.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has considered the implications for his policy on air transport of the judgment by the Court of Session in the case brought by Air 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  [pursuant to the reply, 2 May, 1989 column 119]: I am making new traffic distribution rules for Scotland, taking proper account of the written judgment of the Court of Session, to ensure that effect continues to be given to the Government's Scottish lowland airports policy, as set out in the 1985 White Paper (Cmnd. 9542).

  The White Paper said that this policy, under which Prestwick is designated as the gateway for long-haul flights, would be reviewed if by 1989 there had not been a steady improvement in Prestwick's financial results. Earlier this year, the chairman of BAA plc requested an immediate review on general grounds.

  Though Prestwick's financial position has in fact enjoyed a steady improvement, I have nevertheless considered the BAA request and have consulted my right

  343
  hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have concluded that a review of current policy would not be appropriate.

  The Government are, however, conscious of the belief that Prestwick would be better able to play its part in meeting demand for air transport in Scotland if it enjoyed better surface access. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making a separate statement about this.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs how many students on Overseas Development Administration grants, and from which countries of origin, are currently studying in the United Kingdom; what is the comparable information for five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  More than 14,350 overseas students were studying in the United Kingdom on ODA grants, or held grants from organisations financed from the aid programme, in the 1988–89 financial year. I shall arrange for a list of their countries of origin to be published in the Official Report. Comparable figures for 1983, 1978 and 1973 were 11,847, 14,387 and 14,970 respectively.

  The information for students on ODA grants is as follows:

  Country

  Number here financial year 1988–89

  Afghanistan

  17

  Africa (Regional)

  4

  Algeria

  50

  Angola

  44

  Anguilla

  3

  Antigua

  11

  Bahamas

  —

  Bangladesh

  593

  Barbados

  29

  Belize

  23

  Bermuda

  2

  Benin

  25

  Bhutan

  28

  Bolivia

  34

  Botswana

  320

  Brazil

  89

  British Virgin Islands

  9

  Burkina Faso

  19

  Burma

  82

  Burundi

  5

  Cameroon

  170

  Cape Verde Islands

  6

  Caribbean Regional

  25

  Central African Republic

  6

  Chad

  13

  Chile

  15

  China

  1,159

  Colombia

  81

  Congo

  17

  Costa Rica

  20

  Cyprus

  67

  Djibouti

  6

  Dominica

  16

  Dominican Republic

  4

  Ecuador

  47

  Egypt

  132

  Ethiopia

  87

  Falklands

  33

  344

  Country

  Number here financial year 1988–89

  Fiji

  38

  Gabon

  7

  Gambia

  82

  Ghana

  265

  Gibraltar

  23

  Grenada

  18

  Guatemala

  5

  Guinea Bissau

  6

  Guinea Conakry

  22

  Guyana

  41

  Honduras

  13

  Hong Kong

  36

  India

  1,597

  Indonesia

  284

  Ivory Coast

  18

  Jamaica

  43

  Jordan

  94

  Kenya

  831

  Kiribati

  19

  Korea

  18

  Lebanon

  —

  Lesotho

  131

  Liberia

  52

  Madagascar

  17

  Malawi

  599

  Malaysia

  176

  Maldive Islands

  40

  Mali

  25

  Malta

  8

  Mauritania

  17

  Mauritius

  159

  Mexico

  80

  Montserrat

  11

  Morocco

  24

  Mozambique

  157

  Namibia

  181

  Nepal

  208

  Nicaragua

  —

  Niger

  24

  Nigeria

  389

  Oman

  49

  Pakistan

  405

  Panama

  17

  Papua New Guinea

  2

  Paraguay

  25

  Peru

  53

  Philippines

  81

  Rwanda

  8

  Senegal

  32

  Seychelles

  47

  Sierra Leone

  146

  Singapore

  12

  Solomon Islands

  40

  Somalia

  75

  South Africa

  492

  Sri Lanka

  257

  St. Helena

  44

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  13

  St. Lucia

  16

  St. Vincent

  18

  Sudan

  306

  Swaziland

  158

  Syria

  1

  Tanzania

  467

  Thailand

  108

  Togo

  22

  Tonga

  16

  Trinidad and Tobago

  10

  Tunisia

  18

  Turkey

  27

  Turks and Caicos

  27

  Tuvalu

  10

  Uganda

  458

  Vanuatu

  25

  Western Samoa

  3

  Yemen Arab Republic

  122

  345

  Country

  Number here financial year 1988–89

  Yemen PDR

  26

  Zaire

  51

  Zambia

  471

  Zimbabwe

  311

  Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference (SADCC)

  101

  UN Water Decade

  30

  Total

  13,649

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for increasing aid in the current and next financial year to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We aim to increase our bilateral programme to the West Bank and Gaza to over £1 million this year. Our contribution to the budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees rose to £5.25 million last year and has been increased to £5.5 million this year; in addition we are providing £0.25 million for a special study of housing.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give figures for the level of Her Majesty's Government's aid given to Kampuchea in 1988; and if he will make a statement on future aid policy for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Aid to Cambodia amounted to £402,000 in the 1988–89 financial year. This comprised a contribution of £100,000 to the special FAO/World Food Programme appeal, £250,000 to the UNICEF programme, and £52,000 on projects administered by British voluntary agencies.

  It is still too early to consider the provision of Government-to-Government aid. We will reconsider the position when Vietnam has fully withdrawn from its illegal occupation of Cambodia and an acceptable political settlement is in place.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give figures for the level of United Kingdom aid given to Kampuchea in 1988; and if he will make a statement on future aid policy for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Aid to Cambodia amounted to £402,000 in the 1988–89 financial year. This comprised a contribution of £100,000 to the special FAO/World Food Programme appeal, £250,000 to the UNICEF programme, and £52,000 on projects administered by British Voluntary agencies.

  It is still too early to consider the provision of Government-to-Government aid. We will reconsider the position when Vietnam has fully withdrawn from its illegal occupation of Cambodia and an acceptable political settlement is in place.

  Africa (Refugees)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is providing for refugees in Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1988 we provided nearly £31 million for refugees and displaced persons in Africa. This included Britain's share of the European Community's refugee assistance. So far this year we have announced a total of over £14 million in assistance for refugees and displaced persons in countries including Sudan, Mozambique, Malawi, Namibia and Uganda.

  Namibia
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have for aid to Namibia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I expect our programme to Namibia to continue its present focus on English language training and scholarships, on which we are spending £1.5 million this year. I have also announced £500,000 of aid to help repatriate refugees.

  Women
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid development policy in relation to women.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our recent booklet, "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", copies of which are in the Library, explains our women in development policy and progress in implementing it.

  Ethiopia (Somalian Refugees)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid given by the United Kingdom to Somalian refugees in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since the outbreak of the civil conflict in Somalia last year, we have provided assistance totalling some £2·45 million for Somali refugees in Ethiopia. We have provided a further £2·73 million in support of programmes, run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the benefit of both Sudanese and Somali refugees in Ethiopia.

  Amnesty International
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Amnesty International to discuss human rights aspects of Her Majesty's Government's aid policy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Amnesty International is one of a number of human rights organisations with which Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have regular consultations to discuss all aspects of human rights policy.

  Child Health Care
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support immunisation and other programmes to improve child health in the developing countries.
  347
  Mr. Chris Patten
  We support immunisation programmes and other measures to improve child health care through our contributions to the United Nations Children's Fund and the special programmes of the World Health Organisation; through our bilaterally-funded health-care projects, including those financed jointly with non-governmental organisations; and through our support for research.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988, expressed as per capita sum of the population of Nicaragua.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988 through the European Community, disaster relief and other channels was around £1.05 per capita.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas development budget is devoted to helping overseas countries in their efforts against AIDS.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have committed over £17·6 million in support of activities aimed specifically at helping to prevent the further spread of AIDS. Of this, about £11 million was spent in the past two financial years, representing some 0·4 per cent. of the overseas aid budget for those years. Much of our help is given through the World Health Organisation. We are currently the third largest donor to its global programme on AIDS. This year, subject to parliamentary approval, we shall contribute a further £4·5 million to the programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the course of his examining the case for transferring Property Services Agency staff from Newmarket in the rural district of Forest Heath to the city of Cambridge, he took account of the submissions made to him by the Cambridgeshire Small Business Group about the impact on business and jobs and of the shortage and high cost of land in Cambridge and it's environs; how much land Property Services Agency now occupies at the Brooklands avenue site in Cambridge; how many civil servants of all Departments work there; what is his policy on accommodating civil servants in town centre sites in single storey accommodation built during the second world war; and whether, in view of his study of the housing situation in Cambridge, he will invite the Property Services Agency to reconsider its intention to abandon its site in Newmarket in favour of accommodation in Cambridge.

  Mr. Chope
  The site at Brooklands avenue, Cambridge, comprising some 30 acres, contains offices housing about 1,100 civil servants. The decision to transfer 49 Property Services Agency staff from Newmarket to Cambridge was taken some time ago on grounds of operational efficiency. It did not necessitate the acquisition of any more land. The 348
  chairman of the Cambridgeshire Small Business Group wrote to my right hon. Friend in March this year and has received a reply to the points he made in his letter. There is no reason to change the decision about the closure of the Property Services Agency office in Newmarket.

  Brooklands Site, Cambridge
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the market value with planning consent for residential use of the Brooklands site currently occupied by Government servants in Cambridge; how many square feet of office space are occupied per civil servant employed on this site; and what is the average space per office employee in(a) the city of Cambridge, (b) the town of Newmarket and (c) the London borough of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The market value of land for housing in the Cambridge area is estimated to be around £650,000 an acre depending on size, location and planning constraints. The 1,100 staff at Brooklands avenue occupy about 175,000 sq ft of office and circulation space, an average of 159 sq ft each. These staff, like all civil servants throughout the country, are accommodated in accordance with nationally agreed space standards.

  Sea Levels
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been commissioned into the likely effect of a rise in sea levels on wild birds which depend on Britain's estuaries and soft coasts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Government Departments are currently spending nearly £13 million on research into climate change. Whilst some of this is related to the effects of a resulting rise in sea levels, none is directed specifically at the effects on birds habitats.

  The Department has commissioned research to predict the effects of reductions in shore width caused by land claim on estuarine wading bird numbers. A report on this research will be available shortly. We intend to utilise and extend these studies to examine the impacts of reductions in shore width from the seaward side, resulting from sea levels rise.

  Roman Remains (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 18 April,Official Report, column 77, what is involved in preservation by record.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Preservation by record is a general term used to describe the process of documenting by means of photographic record, written report and where appropriate the display of the important artefacts/remains that have been uncovered in the course of an excavation.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to take steps to provide protection from double charging under the community charge system for an individual, who owns his
  349
  own home and who is required to live in accommodation provided for him by his employer; if he will undertake consultations for this purpose; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the liability to community charge after April 1990 of a teacher in an independent boarding school who owns his own home at a distance from the school and lives in school accommodation either (a) as a condition of his employment or (b) for convenience, as to whether an exemption from either personal community charge or standard community charge will apply in any such case, and as to whether a maximum limit will be prescribed for the standard community charge in any such case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to make any special provision for individuals in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend. Domestic property which is not used as a sole or main residence will give rise to a standard community charge.

  In determining the level of the standard charge for their areas, local authorities already have a discretion to set this at a multiple of 0, 1/2, 1, 11/2 or 2 of the personal charge.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the illustrative community charge levels for each local authority in England for 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 April at column 532.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) the means of distribution being used to distribute the household community charge leaflet and (b) the cost of this distribution.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Longford Hall, Stretford
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received concerning Longford hall, Stretford;

  (2) if he will investigate allegations that work has taken place at Longford hall, Stretford in contravention of regulations affecting listed buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations have been received on behalf of the Longford District Conservation Area Association. These concerned the proposed sale of Longford hall, its present state of repair and works alleged to have been carried out without listed building consent.

  It is primarily for Trafford metropolitan borough council, both as owners of the hall and as planning authority, to take all appropriate steps to secure the building from deterioration and to ensure compliance with listed building procedures. We understand from the council that the recent work was needed to clear up debris left by vandalism, and that security will be increased to deter further unauthorised access. It hopes soon to finalise its proposals for the future of the building.

  Wimbledon Common
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the funding base for the upkeep of Wimbledon common.
  350
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are considering a proposal from the conservators of the common that they become a special levying body under provisions in the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the joint report of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace called "Exposing the Faults: the Geological Case against Plans by Nirex to Dispose of Radioactive Waste".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not responded to the joint Friends of the Earth/Greenpeace report. Any proposal submitted by UK Nirex for the development of a deep repository for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste will have to satisfy the authorising Departments' assessment principles.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many studies regarding the geological formation of places which Nirex chose for the disposal of nuclear waste were carried out prior to such decisions; and who carried out the studies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In seeking to identify a preferred site for a radioactive waste repository, Nirex has followed the three-stage approach recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is outlined in Nirex's report to Government, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The report also lists the main contractors and consultants.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost for each of (a) Bispham, (b) Cleveleys, (c) Fleetwood and (d) Heysham—Half Moon bay of (i) a long sea outfall, (ii) full sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall and (iii) full sewage treatment works with a long sea outfall to enable them to comply with European Economic Community bathing water directive 76/160/ EEC; and when the appropriate solution will be put in place, giving estimated date of commencement and completion.

  Mr. Howard
  The North West water authority has proposed a scheme involving the construction of a long sea outfall to bring, inter alia, the five bathing waters at Blackpool including the waters at Bispham and Cleveleys into compliance with the EC bathing water directive by 1993 at a total cost of about £55 million. I understand that as a result of this scheme, the waters at Fleetwood are also expected to meet the directive's standards by the same date. The date of commencement for this scheme depends upon the Secretary of State's decision on whether to grant NWWA's applications for consent to discharge from the proposed long sea outfall.

  The capital cost of providing, as an alternative, a sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall is estimated to be around £10 million higher than the proposed scheme, with additional running costs of around £1 million per annum. However, such a scheme is unlikely to enable all the identified bathing waters in the area to achieve the required EC standards.
  351
  Full details of the option of a sewage treatment works combined with a long sea outfall are not available, but I understand that the capital cost would be some £20 million to £30 million higher than the proposed scheme.

  With regard to the bathing waters at Heysham—Half Moon bay, the North West water authority has been asked to draw up detailed plans to bring this, and other bathing waters in the north-west, up to EC standards by 1995. Until these plans have been fully assessed I am unable to give details of either the costs involved or compliance dates.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost for each of (a) Formby, (b) Ainsdale and (c) Southport of (i) a long sea outfall, (ii) full sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall, (iii) full sewage treatment works with a long sea outfall to enable them to comply with EEC bathing water directive 76/160/EEC; and when the appropriate solutions will be put in place giving the estimated date of commencement and completion.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the North West water authority to draw up detailed plans with a view to bringing their bathing waters up to EC standards by 1995. Until these plans have been fully assessed, I am unable to give details of either the costs or compliance dates involved for particular bathing waters.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost for each of (a) St. Annes, (b) St. Annes north, (c) Blackpool south, (d) Blackpool central and (e) Blackpool north of (i) a long sea outfall, (ii) full sewerage treatment works with a short sea outfall and (iii) full sewerage treatment works with a long sea outfall to enable them to comply with European Economic Community bathing water directive 76/160/EEC; and when the appropriate solution will be put in place, giving the estimated date of commencement and completion.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: The North West water authority has proposed a scheme involving the construction of a long sea outfall to bring, inter alia, the

  £ billion

  Market value of housing stock

  31 December 1986

  645·3

  Rateable value of domestic property

  1 April 1988

  3·969

  Rate income from domestic ratepayers in 1988–89

  7·812

  BISF Houses (Nottingham)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in his discussions with building societies concerning the mortgageability of BISF houses in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Abbey National and Halifax building societies have confirmed to officials that their national lending policies make no distinction between BISF houses and those of traditional construction. They treat each house on its individual merits, lending on normal terms up to the societies' usual maximum loan, subject to condition, valuation, and status of the applicant.
  352
  five bathing waters at Blackpool together with the waters at St. Annes North into compliance with the EC bathing water directive by 1993 at a total cost of about £55 million. The date of commencement for this scheme depends upon my right hon. Friend's decision on whether to grant NWWA's applications for consent to discharge from the proposed long sea outfall.

  The capital cost of providing, as an alternative, a sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall is estimated to be about £10 million higher than the proposed scheme, with additional costs of about £1 million per annum. However, such a scheme is unlikely to enable all the identified bathing waters in the area to achieve the required EC standards.

  Full details of the option of a sewage treatment works combined with a long sea outfall are not available, but I understand that the capital cost would be some £20 million to £30 million higher than the proposed scheme.

  North West water authority has been asked to draw up detailed plans to bring the bathing waters at St. Anne's, and other non-complying bathing waters, up to EC standards by 1995. Until these plans have been fully assessed I cannot give details of the costs or compliance dates involved.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research projects undertaken for his Department by the Natural Environment Research Council during the past five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Domestic Property
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the market value of all domestic rated property in England and Wales, the rateable value of that property and the sums which will be raised by rates on that property in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest information for England and Wales is as follows:

  Where owners wish to carry out improvements, the societies will consider applications for re-mortgage in the normal way.

  These national policies apply equally to properties in the Nottingham area. The societies have taken steps to remind surveyors, valuers and estate agents with whom they normally deal in Nottingham of those policies.

  The societies have also pointed out that valuations of all kinds of property can easily be affected by misleading statements about safety and durability, and that some recent press and television coverage may not have had a helpful effect on the market.

  I very much welcome the positive and public attitude taken by these two major building societies, which I believe reflects the position of other lending institutions, and I am

  353
  sure that owners of BISF houses will welcome this, and take to heart their advice on factors which could affect the operation of the market locally.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Her Majesty's Government are considering new steps for the protection of the ozone layer in line with the United Nations call for immediate urgent action.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said at the first meeting of the Montreal protocol parties in Helsinki last week it is time to "sharpen the teeth" of the protocol. During the review process which was started there, and building on the impetus provided by the London conference, we shall be pressing for a significant strengthening of the protocol. The European Community is calling for a reduction of production and consumption of CFCs by 85 per cent. as soon as possible with a view to their complete elimination by the end of the century.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will make provision to reimburse Liverpool city council for special expenditure arising out of the events at Hillsborough on 15 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Normally, local authorities make some provision in their own budgets for extraordinary and unforeseeable costs.

  Liverpool city council's officers have raised orally with the Department's regional office officials the possibility of the council's seeking special assistance. If the council was to seek such assistance, we should of course consider its request carefully.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many English Heritage properties which were, prior to the forming of English Heritage in 1984, open all day every day now have opening and closing times; and if he will list these, with their current opening and closing times.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department holds no records of opening hours at the various monuments for which English Heritage assumed responsibility on 1 April 1984. Details of opening hours since then are a matter for English Heritage.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his reply of 2 May,Official Report, column 52, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, compliance with the European Community directive on water standards will be achieved within the timing given by the European Community.

  Mr. Howard
  We are fully committed to compliance with the EC drinking water directive as soon as practicable. However, water undertakers have recently submitted improvement programmes for supplies which occasionally fail to comply in all respects with the directive. These programmes are being assessed and it is not therefore possible at present to state how long it will take to comply fully with the directive. In due course t he programmes will be presented to the European Commission.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Crown Suppliers continue to comply with established public procurement procedures and relevant EEC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: Yes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenders the Crown Suppliers competed for in the past year; what was their estimated value; and how many it won.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: Information relating to tender bids by the Crown Suppliers is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of public money has so far been paid out to the management buy-out teams in the Crown Suppliers in order to help finance their bids; what is the specific uses for which the money has been claimed; and what is the maximum amount of subsidy he is prepared to pay to each team.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: We have agreed to help the management buy-out teams with the fees paid to their professional advisers, so that they are not at a disadvantage when compared with outside bidders. The contribution formulae provide for repayment if a team's bid is successful, a maximum Government contribution of £132,000 for the team which is interested in the whole business and of £36,000 for the team interested only in the transport operations. Each team is expected to make a substantial contribution to their own fees. Payment of £700 has been authorised to date.

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

Sea Bathing: Health Warnings
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken through the appropriate local authorities to warn the public of the possible danger of infection from sea bathing at some United Kingdom seaside resorts.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords. it is for local authorities, acting on the advice of their medical officer of environmental health, to warn the public of any possible danger of infection from sea bathing in their area.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and note that the responsibility is placed on the local authorities. That is probably correct. Is he aware that it does not need a chemical analysis of the sea water to determine how bad the situation is? All that is necessary is to use one's eyes and sense of smell, and it becomes very vivid indeed. Is he aware that in the case of sea water that is disturbed, for example, by weather or current, it is usual to hoist a red flag warning the public not to bathe there? I am not asking for the same action; but is it not possible to introduce some method of warning the public that they and their children should not bathe in sewage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in certain areas the standards are not what we should like. That is why we are spending so much money in trying to improve the standards to those of the Community regulations.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that, following privatisation of water authorities, the utility companies will be able to enforce the progress necessary to bring all those beaches up to the standard required by the Common Market's directive? Will the National Rivers Authority have power to enforce progress? Of the 380 beaches that are subject to the directive, how many have so far been awarded the blue flag of purity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the second point, the blue flag scheme is not only for bathing waters but for the beach as well. The beach is very much the responsibility of the local authority. Part of the criteria for a blue flag award is that there should be no dogs on the beaches, as the noble Lord will know. Therefore although the bathing water might be clean, the beach might be disbarred not only as a result of dogs but because of litter and
390
other factors. On the first question that the noble Lord asked, I have no doubt that the Water Bill, which we shall be discussing later this afternoon, will be of immense benefit.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on the whole, mainly due to lack of resources, and because of other priorities local authorities do not put up notices where there is danger of infection from bathing waters? Will the Minister ensure that resources are available to local authorities in order for them to undertake their own monitoring of bathing water and to take steps to warn the public about beaches where appropriate? Does the Minister understand that in many instances it is a question of resources and not will?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we give substantial sums of money to local authorities. How they spend that money is up to them.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, now that the weather has so improved, will the noble Earl include in his advice a note saying that the risk is well worth taking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if temperatures such as those at present continue, it might be possible to bathe in some comfort off the British Isles.

MoD Workers: Relocation from South-East
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent progress has been made by the Ministry of Defence in moving jobs from the South of England to other parts of Britain.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has recently completed the transfer of 1,400 jobs to Glasgow as part of the Government's existing dispersal programme. On 9th March this year we announced a move of the Ministry's Quality Assurance Directorate—some 1,500 jobs—to Teesside. A number of smaller moves are proposed which would involve a further 1,200 jobs being relocated from London and the South-East over the next two years.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Can he say what other plans there are for relocating other defence works farther north, or at least outwith London?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are currently considering the possibility of relocating the land and air systems controllerates involving some 3,400 posts from London to somewhere outside. We expect to reach a decision on that very shortly. A range of further relocation possibilities is also under review

391
with a view to finding appropriate sites for as many jobs as we can.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with these jobs that are being created, will full attention be given to the high techniques that are required today to ensure that the arms that are put into soldiers' hands are the best that can be provided by anyone?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, of course, my Lords. It is essential in any of these relocation considerations to ensure that they remain as effective as ever.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when workers are moved as part of these relocation schemes, are allowances paid to make up for the additional expense of moving and finding new accommodation?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Allowances are presently paid. We are concerned to ensure that these meet the necessary expenses which people incur. We are therefore reviewing the present package of allowances to see whether it needs to be improved.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in the first part of his answer the noble Lord gave the number of movements. Can he say what proportion of staff who are offered relocation take it? Secondly, what consultations take place in developing these programmes and what regard is paid to regional economic plans?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we take great care to discuss these plans at as early a stage as possible with all those directly concerned, not least the representatives of the personnel themselves. I believe that is the main point which the noble Lord was concerned about.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that it is only considerations of national security that prevent the Government from locating more defence establishments, and thus establishing more jobs, in parts of Britain other than the south of England?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, for very good traditional historical reasons, now very much lost in the mists of history, a great proportion of Ministry of Defence establishments are located in the South-East of England. The reason, I am told, was to counter the threat from Napoleon many years ago. Clearly, different considerations now apply; we are therefore working hard to correct the imbalance that undoubtedly exists. The problem is that the cost of moving many of these establishments, leaving aside the disruption to the personnel, is often considerable.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as deputy chairman of the Teesside Development Corporation, may I unusually congratulate the Government on their wisdom in bringing the 1,500 jobs which the Minister has just mentioned to Teesside? Those jobs are very much needed in that part of the country.
392
How much time is likely to elapse between the announcement that was made, as he said, on 9th March, and jobs actually being created in the area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware the necessary facilities must be set up for the quality assurance directorate. Quite a range of technical equipment is required to carry out the work, some of which will be removed from its present site, mostly at Woolwich. Other equipment will be acquired locally. All that will, I fear, take some time; so it will be two or three years before the benefits of this change are seen in jobs in the district.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the moves which are to be made to Glasgow and the North-East. Will he consider the claims and the needs of Wales when further transfers are under consideration? Will he indicate what is the ratio of jobs created in any of these areas in relation to the numbers transferred from the South-East to Glasgow, the North-East and elsewhere? As far as Wales is concerned, will he be good enough to consult carefully with Mr. Peter Walker, who, as he knows, is very keen on these things?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should have to take some advice concerning the ratio of the remaining jobs. Some 60,000 civilian jobs presently exist in the South-East area represented by the Ministry of Defence. As for the claims of Wales for any future relocations, Cardiff is among the places being considered for the land and air systems controllerate move to which I referred a moment ago.

Industrial Disputes: Policy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards employers and employees during an industrial dispute.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, if such disputes arise, the Government hope that they will be resolved without damage to the interests of the business in which both employers and employees are engaged.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, does his answer not seem to be in conflict with what is happening in the national dock labour scheme dispute, bearing in mind that one of the parties, the union representing the workers, has already offered to go to ACAS to settle the matter amicably? The Government have chosen to force through a Bill which is totally one-sided and seen to be on behalf of the employers. Is that not in complete contradiction with the Minister's answer?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it can scarcely be provocative for the Government to propose that the dock workers in today's well-paid port industry

393
should have the same rights and obligations as other employees and in addition should have special compensation for redundancy for a three-year period.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is the belief of some of us that ACAS was set up to deal with this problem? In a dispute between employees and employers the Government could help both sides to go to ACAS to try to settle the matter round the table which is the civilised method of doing it. Can he say something about ACAS?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, ACAS works with the voluntary agreement of all parties concerned. It is for both parties therefore to go to ACAS if they so desire.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not rather disingenuous to expect there to be no industrial disaffection in a situation where employees are offered deals much below the rate of inflation and in a situation also where mortgage rates are a heavy obstacle and obligation upon employees? Is it not absurd to expect there to be no industrial disruption in such circumstances?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not expect there to be industrial disruption in the circumstances because the one thing that employees in our land have learnt over the last few years is that industrial disputes lead to the destruction of people's jobs. It is true that interest rates on mortgages are high—but no higher than they were two or two-and-a-half years ago while the general level of wages is above that. There is only one thing that can bring down this country and keep the rate of inflation rising. That is wage claims that are too high and not earned.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, for better or worse, now that the Government's legislation affecting industrial disputes is in place, it is essential that the Government should adopt an even-handed approach between employers and representatives of employees in any particular dispute?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I confirm that the Government do precisely that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, if that is so, would it not be good if the Government were openly to declare their support for arbitration and arbitration processes rather than, as far as one can see, undermining the role of the Central Arbitration Committee, as has happened in recent years?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. The point of government standing away from such disputes is that they should not interfere with either the employer and employee or the employer and the union; and that is what it would mean.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he cannot get away with it by saying that it is a matter for ACAS; that under the terms of the 1896 Conciliation Act, the Secretary of State has the
394
responsibility to take such steps as he deems expedient to promote an amicable dispute settlement; and that he must do so particularly when one of the parties will not come? Why will the Secretary of State not use his powers under the 1896 Act?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I so deem that I should not use those powers.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the Minister rightly said that one of the great dangers to the country is inflation through excessive wage demands. Does he agree that those demands are fuelled by the enormous increases for the people at the top of the professions and industry? Does he also agree that it is hard to expect the employees of the BBC to be satisfied with 6 or 7 per cent. when the director general is awarded an increase of 30 per cent.?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that attitude prevailed in this country for decades after the war and we all know where it got us. We should not look at what other people receive; we should look at what we do ourselves and at how much we deserve.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that during the passage of previous legislation through your Lordships' House reference was made to the observations of the Master of the Rolls, who in his capacity as chairman of the industrial relations courts said even then that legislation was weighted in favour of the employers? Does he not understand that his Answer to my Question can only be interpreted by those involved as meaning that the Government are not bent on giving trade unionists basic rights, as they keep on saying, but instead are bent on removing most of the basic rights? Is it not true that their stand has been shown to be a complete sham by the recent statement of the International Labour Organisation on the basis of what the Government are doing to the trade union movement?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. The TUC has said that the International Labour Organisation has made a statement but it has not. A committee of the ILO has reported. It will be interesting to see what the ILO has to say when it is aware of the full facts regarding trade unions and the rights of trade unions in this country, which still have a privileged position in our legal system.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, do I understand from what the Secretary of State said that the Government are discouraging the use of arbitration when there is a dispute and are supporting the idea that employers should resist going to arbitration? Secondly, on reflection, will the Secretary of State not revise his comment that the only thing which can hold back this country is wage increases? Surely there are plenty of other things such as inadequate training, inadequate investment and inadequate infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State really say that the only thing is pay claims?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall gladly agree that there are other matters which could hold back this country. However, I do not see that I have a positive duty to intervene, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, implied that I should.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Secretary of State tell the House why he arrived at that decision and why he is not prepared to use the legislation provided by this Parliament? Why has he deemed it unnecessary to use that legislation and to intervene? Can we please have the reasons?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. There is no positive duty on me to say why I should not do something in this instance, and nor shall I.

Turkey: Human Rights
2.54 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the banning for many years of the public use of the Kurdish language in Turkey despite Article 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne, they will bring pressure to bear on the Turkish Government to conform with that article and, in particular, whether they will oppose Turkey's application to join the European Community until they have done so.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, in discussing human rights with the Turkish Government, we have frequently made clear that we expect them to respect and abide by the terms and conditions of the international treaties and conventions to which they are a party. Turkey's application to join the EC is currently being considered by the Commission. Once its opinion is available, the application will then be considered further by the Council of Ministers, which will take into account all relevant factors.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Will he agree that under the treaty, to which the British Empire as it then existed, France and Italy were principal signatories, Turkey agreed that:
"No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings … or … before the Courts"?
Is it not a fact that the 8 million to 10 million Kurds in Turkey, whose principal language is Kurdish, are permitted no Kurdish language books, newspapers, radio or TV programmes and no Kurdish-speaking schools, and that the use of the Kurdish language in the law courts is prohibited? Is that not in direct contravention of the agreement made by Turkey in 1923 at Lausanne, and should they not now be compelled to conform with their undertaking?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord accurately quotes from Article 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The difficulty is that there is an earlier
396
sentence in that article which may to some extent conflict with that which he has quoted. Nevertheless, we expect the Turkish Government to treat all their citizens with due regard to the terms of the relevant international conventions to which Turkey is a party, and this is such a convention.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Kurds make up approximately one-quarter of the population of Turkey? Might it be helpful to inform the Turks of the much more generous way that we treat, for example, the Welsh-speaking element in this country, a smaller minority, which has Welsh-speaking schools, a television channel and so forth?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the Turkish Government appreciate the importance of Welsh speaking in this country, particularly in Wales. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we can go down that particular road, although I confirm that the figures given by the noble Lord are broadly correct.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I do not propose to deal with the noble Lord's intervention at this stage. Will the Minister confirm that his initial Answer means that Her Majesty's Government will make Turkey's approach to human rights a major consideration when the Turkish application for membership of the EC is decided?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not in a position to say anything more about the EC application other than that it is now being considered by the Commission. I cannot predict what will happen or how long it will take. However, there are many other suitable avenues for ventilating the concerns which exist about human rights anywhere, and they include the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Turkey is a party.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Iraq's attacks on the Kurds over the past two years represent violations of human rights as terrible as any perpetrated worldwide since the end of World War II?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am well aware of many of the concerns which have been raised about the abuses of human rights to which the noble Viscount has referred. However, his question goes a little further than the Treaty of Lausanne.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I do not know what the earlier sentence is to which the Minister referred in the Treaty of Lausanne, but could I direct his attention to another earlier sentence in Article 37? It states that Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in the article that I quoted shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with those stipulations.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I also have that article in front of me, but I cannot interpret the Treaty of Lausanne from the Dispatch Box in quite the way

397
that the noble Lord suggests. I suspect that it is a matter for international lawyers.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.00 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Legal Aid (Functions) (No. 2) Order 1989 and the Beef Special Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1989 will be taken.

Water Bill
3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ABERDARE) in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91 A:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to protect the environment and promote recreation.
—(1) This section has effect, in relation to a relevant body—

(a) whether or not that body is formulating or considering proposals as specified in sections 8(1) or 8(2) below; and

(b) notwithstanding any duty of the Secretary of State or the Director under section 7(2) or 7(3) or (d).

(2) The duties imposed under this section shall apply in relation to—

(a) any land which at the date of passing this Act was owned by a water authority or which has been acquired, or in which an interest has been acquired, by a water or sewerage undertaker at any times after that date, whether or not that ownership or interest is still held by the undertaker;

(b) any buildings, objects, flora, fauna or natural features or any land to which paragraph (a) above applies; and

(c) any river, reservoir, stream, canal or other waterway, or the banks thereof, and any beach or coastal area likely to be affected by the carrying out of any water or sewerage function.

(3) A relevant body shall, in respect of its functions under this Act, have a duty to protect the environment, further conservation and generally to enhance beauty and amenity in relation to any matters to which section 8 below refers.
(4) Subject to subsection (3) above, a relevant body shall, in respect of its functions under this Act, have a duty to promote public access to land and waters for recreational purposes.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "relevant body" means the Authority, a water undertaker, a sewerage undertaker, an internal drainage board, or any person who—

(a) has an interest in land or waters in which, at the date of passing this Act, was owned or leased by a water authority;

(b) undertakes any function which, at the date of passing of this Act, was undertaken by a water authority.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 91A introduces a new clause before Clause 8, and your Lordships may think that is a rather curious procedure. It does that because Clause 8 is defective in so many ways that it is difficult to correct those defects within the scope of the clause as it has been framed.
As Members of the Committee will see from the Marshalled List, we have many detailed amendments relating to Clause 8, but we thought that it would be helpful to the Committee, rather than slowing matters down, if we tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 91 A, which deals with everything we think is wrong with Clause 8 and sets out the way in which we think the protection of the environment under this Water Bill should be handled.
The later amendments to Clause 8 deal with—and I set them out in only the barest outline because there will be a number of hours of debate on those subjects—first, the loose wording which exists and the fact that the clause continues to use words like "having regard to the desirability" of doing something rather than actually doing it; secondly, the matters which are left out of Clause 8 which should be put in—and examples of that are angling interests and the protection of coastal waters; and, thirdly and in particular—and this is a matter of which I give advance notice—the fact that the clause does not properly apply to subsidiary companies of water or sewerage undertakings.
Generally speaking, Clause 8 is weak because, as has been said on a number of occasions as we have considered this Bill, it is subordinate to the prime duty of the Secretary of State and the director general in Clause 7 to see that the water undertakings have an adequate return on capital; in other words, the interests of the environment, like the interests of the consumer which we discussed last week, come second to the profit motive.
Even if all these amendments were accepted there would still be a fundamental problem with the duties imposed on the Secretary of State, the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services and the relevant bodies—the relevant bodies being the water and sewerage undertakings. The problem is that the main duties contained in subsections (1) and (2) of the clause apply only when the undertaking or the director or whoever it may be is considering or formulating proposals relating to water plc land.
That makes Clause 8 essentially a defensive mechanism. It means that where there are proposals, there the director or the water undertaking has specific duties in order to protect the environment. In seeking to insert this new clause into the Bill, we are arguing that, even if all the other defects in Clause 8 were corrected, there is a need for a positive duty on the water and sewerage undertakings rather than simply a defensive duty which applies only when proposals are to be considered.
If there is no positive duty, there cannot be any realistic prospect of the environment having its true force, the force that it should have, against the prime responsibility for maintaining the profitability of

399
the water undertakings. Why—and I ask this in all humility because I realise that the structure of the Bill is very carefully thought out indeed—cannot the Government agree that there should be positive obligations on the Secretary of State, on the director, on the authority and on the water undertakings? Why do all those obligations have to be secondary to the profit-making interest?
That question is being asked not by me alone: it is clearly exercising the public of this country at large, because the deep opposition to these privatisation proposals does not arise from a public belief that water is a God-given commodity which should not be charged for. I believe that those romantic ideas are long past, if they ever existed. The problem is that people think water is such an essential and so naturally monopolistic a phenomenon that it should be subject to social criteria aimed at protecting the consumers and the environment rather than subject to the profit motive.
If the Government seek to convince the public as well as those of us on these Benches who think differently, then they must convince us that environmental interests have in the Government's mind at least equal priority with the other considerations. The Secretary of State has consistently called this an environmental Bill and has consistently talked about the National Rivers Authority—in that case with some justification—as being a step forward in the way in which we treat environmental matters. The acceptance of Amendment No. 91A and the insertion of this new clause before Clause 8 would show the Government's good faith in this matter and would enable them to give effect to what the Secretary of State and the government spokesmen have consistently said since this Bill in its present form was first formulated.
Perhaps I may now turn to the detail of the content of the new clause. Subsection (1) gives effect to the obligations, whether or not the water plc or authority is formulating or considering proposals as specified in Clause 8(1) or (2). It gives that effect regardless of the obligations under Clause 7(2).
Subsection (2) means that the clause will refer not only to the operational land of the water and sewerage undertakings but to all land and to that land regardless of the ownership in which it subsequently alights. That presages amendments which we have put down to ensure that the water undertakings cannot get out of their environmental obligations under this Bill simply by disposing of the land either to other companies altogether or, indeed, to their own subsidiaries. Therefore, it seems to us that if there is to be environmental protection for water authority land, that must be a continuing environmental protection, no matter in whose ownership the land is after privatisation.
However, it is not just land with which we are concerned. We are also concerned with buildings, objects, flora and fauna, with natural features on the land and with rivers, reservoirs, streams, canals, other waterways and the banks of such waterways. All those should be protected in the same way as the land is protected. The same is true of beaches and
400
coastal areas which might be affected by the carrying out of water and sewerage functions.
Clause 8 sets out in some detail—and we hope that after this amendment it will set out in even more detail—the precise duties which will exist for the Secretary of State, the authorities, the director general and the relevant bodies, the water and sewerage undertakings. However, if the detailed duties are not protected by this clause, they will be triggered only if proposals are put forward for different use of the land. We are rationalising this procedure and making sure that it is an abiding duty for all time on those concerned with the land. The proposals apply not only to what actually happens to the land but also to public access to the land. They apply not only to the authority, the water undertakings and the internal drainage board but also to those persons who have acquired an interest in the land which was formerly owned or leased by a water authority.
It is therefore fair to say that this new clause draws together the more important of the obligations which we believe should be placed on the water undertakings which will succeed the present water authorities. If the Government can see their way to agreeing to the amendment we will feel much happier not only about Clause 8 as it is presently drafted but also about the amendments which, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has indicated, are to be introduced to Clause 8 to protect land of special environmental value. We do not know what those new amendments will propose. We do not attempt in any way to anticipate, either negatively or positively, what form they will take. The Minister was not able to say what form they will take; he was good enough to say that he would listen to Members of the Committee before making a final decision on what form they should take. That is clearly the correct procedure.
I hope that the Minister will feel that this new clause is a helpful contribution to our collective thinking, that he will agree that the principles embodied in it are worthy of inclusion in the Bill and that he can indicate the Government's acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Broadbridge: The purpose of this amendment, to which I have put my name, is, to use the language of solicitors, the avoidance of doubt. It seeks to specify comprehensively exactly what land and waters are to be conserved so that when the Bill leaves Parliament and has to be operated by others not close to our debates they will not be left in the unenviable position—alas, not unknown—of saying that it is all very well but Parliament did not make clear beyond an iota of doubt what exactly is to be protected.
In supporting this amendment I am most concerned with what might be called urban fringe land. I spoke on Second Reading and again on Amendments Nos. 2 and 8, which were taken together, in that context. Much is made of the risks to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, SSSIs and the like. Such areas are already corporately protected, although it was gratifying, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, to hear the Minister when replying to Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 say that

401
the Government will give special additional thought to the worries expressed by the Committee.
At that time the Minister differentiated between what broadly he called uplands and the urban fringe. In the context of the latter he wondered whether I was aware that some 500,000 houses have to be built by the year 2000. That may well be so, and the present and successive Secretaries of State will have the unenviable task of exercising the wisdom of Solomon in deciding where they should be built. However, I must mention—I promise this will be for the last time—that if the 29 acres of reservoirs and filter beds at Stoke Newington are to be taken as an example the present balance is between 1,100 luxury dwellings and associated shopping facilities on the one hand, and one of the few remaining large amenities, available to about 1 million or 2 million people living in inner north London, on the other. I feel that such a situation is replicated all over the country; otherwise I would not mention a parochial issue. It is a microcosm of situations which must exist elsewhere.
The amendment seeks to ensure that such an area is initially within the protection areas covered by the Bill by comprehensively specifying those areas. It is not only those areas of land and water having a high national profile of usage and enjoyment that need initial protection. There are also the areas about which I have spoken—a sort of rag-bag of often small locations that could easily be totally changed. They may not be of national importance; they may be small; but they are a vital lung to a surprisingly large number of people, many of them elderly, some of them young, and in either case often poor. Such people enjoy these crucial areas daily. I do not consider it an exaggeration to say that it is a part of what keeps them out of psychiatric treatment.
The amendment is designed to be helpful and constructive, not divisive or wrecking. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept it in the spirit in which it is offered and not, to bend a rather well known aphorism, take the stance of, "Beware of Greeks, especially when they bring gifts".
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I speak briefly in support of the amendment. Clause 8 will alarm anyone who looks at it closely. It is lamentably weak. It is full of sentences such as, "having regard to", "taking account of", and "having regard to the desirability of". That does not satisfy anyone who has an interest in conservation. I do not think that it can be said that so weak a Bill will conserve.
With these amendments we seek to move from the defensive to the positive. Why is it not possible for positive environmental duties to be included in the Bill? The Minister has said that he is prepared to come forward on Report with amendments to Clause 8; we all appreciated that. He said that he would listen to suggestions. I suggest one possible way forward. For land with environmental prospects the Government could offer to the water authorities a long lease of, say, 999 years with restrictive covenants. That is one possibility. It would not be particularly difficult and certainly there are many
402
bodies, such as the NCC and the Countryside Commission, which could advise the Minister on what land should be transferred. That would be a positive step, though it probably does not appeal to the Minister.
In the meantime, the amendment goes to the root of the matter and, if accepted, would please many in the Committee who have later amendments dealing with individual subjects such as fishing, and so on. Therefore, I hope the amendment will receive a sympathetic hearing.
Viscount Caldecote: I have considerable sympathy for the objectives of this amendment. My understanding of it is that there are two aspects. The first is continuity of protection, on which the noble Lord has just spoken. It is an obvious point that I hope the Government will take on board because there is no point in protecting the use of land and water areas which now belong to the water undertakings and abandoning that protection if and when the land is sold.
Secondly, subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new clause refer to conservation and recreation. Both are important, but I am not sure that I am entirely happy about always putting conservation in front of recreation. It is, of course, a difficult balance to be held, but I should like to emphasise the great importance of recreational opportunities for the young. We shall come back to that point later in the Bill. There is no doubt that much hooliganism today is because young people do not have enough outlets for their energies. They need interesting and challenging recreational activities. Sailing is one of those activities. Sailing and racing on reservoirs and rivers constitute a very important outlet for young people. I hope that the Government will give a firm indication that they support that principle, whether or not the amendment is the ideal way of achieving it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Viscount sits down, it is not intended in this amendment that conservation should have priority over recreation. It is simply that the words have to be in one order or another. There is no intention whatever that full attention should not be paid to recreation. There is, of course, sometimes a conflict, as the noble Viscount will recognise, between access and recreation. That is a professional or technical matter; it is not an issue which we intend to pre-judge in our wording of the new clause.
Viscount Caldecote: I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord said. The wording of subsection (4) "Subject to subsection (3)" implies that subsection (3) is more important than subsection (4). No doubt that point can be dealt with in subsequent amendments.
Lord Renton: I must agree with my noble friend Lord Caldecote about the need for continuity in planning arrangements. We had a discussion about that last week. I do not wish to repeat the argument that I and others put forward. The obvious need for continuity is that you do not get adequate protection

403
of the environment unless you have it. It is not fair on the people whose interests are involved if we do not have continuity, and if we are always chopping and changing the policy.
Having said that, I do not see how anyone can disagree with the broad motives of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in putting forward the amendment. As I see it, his trouble is that those motives are already embodied in Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill and are set out in very considerable detail. The actual words of the amendment used sometimes overlap with the words in those subsequent clauses, especially Clause 8. I believe that if we were to add this clause to the Bill before Clause 8, we would be making a very confused situation in the reading of the Bill on this vitally important subject. I grant that this is one of the most important matters for us to be considering in connection with the Bill. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Caithness (or whoever is to answer for the Government) has to say. I would not expect them to accept the amendment as it stands.
The Earl of Onslow: As my noble friend Lord Renton said, I do not believe that anyone can in any way disagree with the motive. I believe we have to be quite careful about preserving the Stoke Newington filter beds as if they were the Pyramids of Egypt or the Colossus of Rhodes. After all, they were created by man. If we are not very careful and the filter beds are not looked after properly, they could easily become derelict industrial wasteland. I see the conflict, and I see that it is essential in that part of London to produce proper recreation and conservation with proper access to wildlife. There should be proper access to all the things that almost all Members of the Committee have been privileged to have. We must be very careful how it is done. One has to consider whether one should apply a special piece of legislation to one's old chums to build the roads in Stoke Newington. I am not totally sure whether that is right.
We must wait until Report to see the amendment of my noble friend Lord Caithness on this very subject. I hope that he can get the amendment published as quickly as possible so that we can have almost a pre-Report stage discussion at some later stage in the Bill when it can be tagged on. If views emerge that modify the amendment a little and make it a little better, then those changes can be taken in before the amendment is finally tabled at Report stage. The point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised is absolutely valid. We must not preserve the Stoke Newington filter beds solely and forever. It seems equally important that we must get the Government's proper thinking and allow the planning process to take its due regard as well. This is too complicated and it seems that there are many balls in the air at the same time. All these matters should be looked at very carefully before we take a decision on what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may pass from Stoke Newington to the highlands of Wales. I have here a
404
report of a public meeting held by Welsh Water on Friday of last week. The heading in the local newspaper of Saturday morning is "Hotels plan for private reservoirs". The article continues:
"Hotels and leisure developments may be built overlooking lakes and reservoirs in Wales after Welsh Water is privatised. But the authority's chiefs stressed yesterday that any construction on some of the most beautiful stretches of Welsh countryside would be 'sensitive' to the environment".
The article goes on to explain that on the assumption that privatisation is to take place, Welsh Water will be subdivided into subsidiaries. This brings emphasis to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others, that unless one has continuity of responsiblity, a great deal of Clause 8 will be of little value. The report continues by stating that while the core functions of Welsh Water will be carried out by Dwr Cymru—that is simply Water Welsh in Welsh—there will be three other subsidiaries; namely, Welsh Water Engineering and Environment, Welsh Water Enterprise and then the subsidiary which is connected with this proposed new clause, Welsh Water Land and Leisure.
It is made quite clear that:
"Land and Leisure will be a self-contained profit making subsidiary. Profits will not be transferred to Dwr Cymru to keep down water prices but it may make up a substantial part of the dividends to shareholders".
We are given the assurance by the current managing director of Welsh Water, reinforced by his chairman, that:
"Welsh Water Land and Leisure will make 'commercial use of the company's land and recreation assets in a very sensitive way' ".
I am quite certain that they are entirely sincere in this intention, but what concerns most of us is surely how sensitive can the new subsidiary company afford to be? I am quite certain that it will start off with the best of possible intentions. It is made entirely clear that it will have to provide profits for the shareholders. I am not arguing that particular point concerning the consumers and the prices. Under the Bill such an undertaking will be entirely legitimate. It has now been publicly announced, regarding the areas of the other water authorities that are to become plcs, that they will do very much the same, and they will seek to exploit any landscape or other features at their disposal. The Welsh situation is similar. It will be very difficult indeed for them to resist maximum exploitation. One cannot blame them for that because that is the nature of the new creation. However, it makes it absolutely essential that in dealing with this situation, and if we really care about the environment—the beauty of the landscape, wildlife, the flora and fauna and other natural and archeological features—we make quite sure that Clause 8 is adequate.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in particular, no one can really pretend that Clause 8 as at present drafted is anything like adequate to meet the situation that I have described, and which I have every reason to suppose will be affecting the majority of the new water plcs. I am equally sure that most of them will wish to carry out their duties quite conscientiously. I am equally convinced that they will find that the pressures on them when they become commercial companies will

405
be such that they will almost certainly be led into putting forward development schemes which may or may not get past the planning authority. If they do, then in many situations they will not be the most desirable ways of treating areas of beautiful country which many of us would wish to see not developed unnecessarily, but to remain peaceful and calm and a refreshment to those who wish to go to them.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to underline what my noble friend has just said and ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, this question. How many times have we heard the argument that as this will already be covered in the Bill we do not need it again? It is better to have it in the Bill twice than not to have it at all. There is always the danger that there will be something slightly different in the amendment from the words already contained in the clause.
I want to take up one point with my noble friend on the Front Bench. As a Christian I happen to believe that water is God-given. Of all the government privatisations, this is the one for which they will have to answer later to the Almighty. Water is there for man to use. We must keep that point firmly in front of us.
On conservation, and following the points about Wales and Stoke Newington, in Fulham where I live there is great competition to get the river sites so that expensive flats can be erected. Such flats would look over the river at a beautiful open space. What is that beautiful open space? It is the Barnes reservoir. When I was a small girl I was always told that it would never be taken away and that it was there in perpetuity. It is a beautiful space which we in London value. We should think carefully before we allow anyone to destroy the open spaces, the trees and the plants which are there for enjoyment and recreation. Surely the Government could for once write something into the Bill twice. Does it really matter? The strange argument is always used that the Bill already says this. If the clause is not clear—and with due respect to the Government, it is not clear—what is wrong with underlining the point with this amendment?
Viscount Buckmaster: The noble Baroness may like to know that the Moslems have a saying, "We have created from water every living thing".
Baroness Lockwood: Perhaps I may follow my two noble friends and other noble Lords and take the Committee on a geographical tour of the country, from Stoke Newington to Wales, and from Fulham up to the Yorkshire Moors and Dales. This matter affects not only areas like London but all the large industrial towns in our country. Most of them have reservoirs and areas of land which are well used in the vicinity by local inhabitants. In Yorkshire one thinks of the Washburn Valley, which provides a real amenity to the citizens of Leeds and Bradford. It is not part of the Yorkshire Dales national park but is nevertheless not only an amenity but a recreational area where young and old can come to enjoy the countryside and begin to
406
appreciate the flora and fauna and other natural beauty in the area.
Noble Lords have talked about the importance of continuity. That is embodied in the amendment. We are not just thinking of the water undertakings as they are at present but as the water plcs which might either subcontract or sell some of the land. The rights embodied in the amendment would go with the land so that a company which took it over would be equally responsible for fulfilling the obligations. My noble friend Lord McIntosh spoke of the amendment as a defensive mechanism and went on to point to the positive duty embodied in it. There is a positive duty to protect and conserve the environment and to enhance its beauty and amenity. The clause gives as much weight to the importance of this function as is given to the responsibilities embodied in Clause 7.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I do not feel that Clauses 8, 9 and 10 in themselves are adequate protection. We need something to balance the obligations in Clause 7 to make these undertakings subject to the overriding business and profit principle. The Minister has on previous occasions assured us that there is protection in the Bill. Many people are not convinced by that argument and they would like something specific and positive written into the Bill. I hope therefore that he will be able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may rise on a purely technical point of draftsmanship with particular reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I have always been taught that, from the standpoint of what I might call the aesthetics of draftsmanship, the general should precede the particular. The most general aspect of the Bill is its Long Title. Clause 1 is the most general clause and so on, following in order throughout the different clauses, where the general precedes the particular. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is of a more general character than Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which follow, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, fails. If, on the other hand, it is as particular as what follows, there could be confusion between the different aspects. The noble Lord's point would then have substance.
Lord Ezra: The number of noble Lords who have intervened in the debate on this amendment demonstrates the importance attached to it. In fact, that is a reflection of public opinion. The public is concerned about what will happen to the land which is associated with the water industry and which has substantial environmental and recreational impact. It would be in the Government's interest to show beyond any doubt that it is their intention to safeguard those aspects. That is what the public wants. Clause 8 as presently drafted does not go far enough. If, as some noble Lords have suggested, some duplication of what is said in the Bill is necessary, so be it. Let us duplicate on a point of real public concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made an important contribution to our discussion. However, he accepted that continuity of the environmental and

407
recreational aspects of the land is important. This has to be emphasised beyond doubt. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at an earlier stage that the Government would introduce measures to safeguard this land and would do so at a later stage. I hope that when he comes to reply to the debate he will tell us what he has in mind so that our doubts can be set at rest. The Committee attaches the greatest possible importance to maintaining the environmental and recreational benefits offered by this land. We want them to be retained not only in its present ownership but in any future possible ownership. We look to the Government to make sure that that is enshrined in legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Unfortunately I missed the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, so I may have misunderstood his amendment. Does it say that any land which at the date of the passing of the Act was owned by a water authority will in perpetuity, whoever owns it, continue to have its environmental and ecological protection and public access organised by a water or sewerage undertaking? Is that what it says? It is terribly important that land which is not necessary to the undertaking but which is wanted by the public for public access—and for which the planners want to ensure that there is such access—may be owned by a number of people who would need to organise their own protection of the environment and their own public access without any interference which may arise just because the land happened at one time to be owned, for whatever reason, by a water authority. I wonder whether I have perhaps misunderstood the meaning of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness has raised an interesting and most helpful point. The intention is that those who receive land under the Act—that is, the water undertakings—shall have a continuing responsibility whether or not they continue to own the land. Such undertakings, as they dispose of the land, must secure adequate covenants to give effect to the provisions under this clause and under Clause 8. That is a well-established procedure which exists in many circumstances in the private sector.
My wife and I own a house in London which used to be a tennis club. The covenant dating back to the 1920s on the club stipulates reasonably that no alcohol shall be sold on the premises. There is also a continuing covenant, which my solicitors drew to my attention when we bought the premises, that no alcohol shall be consumed thereon. I think that we have managed to find our way round that particular covenant. The principle of a continuing covenant on the disposal of land is not one which is foreign to our law and there need be no difficulty in ensuring that continuing obligations are carried out.
From the public point of view it is absolutely essential that there should be continuing obligations regardless of who the current owner of the land is. The relevant bodies—in other words, the undertakings who receive the land under the
408
Act—must be the people who are responsible in the first place for imposing the covenants.
The Earl of Radnor: The point should be made that control by covenant is not nearly so strong as it used to be. Moreover, it is very dependent on the previous owner having influence over whatever is sold and upon which the covenant is held. I can imagine that that might not necessarily be the case with a water plc selling on something to someone else; indeed, it may not have any influence in that particular geographical area. Therefore if the matter came before the courts it would be found that the covenant was not as valuable as we seem to think it is at present.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that helpful point. It seems to me that what we are gathering from this discussion is that all Members of the Committee who have spoken thus far are in favour of the principle of continuity. Indeed, that includes the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If so and if it is the case, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, suggested, that the covenant procedure is not adequate, then we must find a way of ensuring that the Act makes that protection available.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had to find a way around the covenant as regards alcohol when he bought his house is a good illustration of what my noble friend has just said.
Baroness Blatch: The two explanations which we have just received from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are most helpful. They emphasise just how much the main objective is shared by all participants in the debate; that is, continuity and continued access to all of these sites. But the amendment goes a little too far. Subsection (2) refers to "any land", "any buildings, objects, flora, fauna", and "any river, reservoir", and so on. It seems to suggest that if the amendment were accepted—again it would be helpful to have further clarification—there would be no varied land use of any piece of land, or any building, which could be owned by a water authority either prior to the passing of the Bill or subsequent to its enactment. Therefore I think that that provision would be too all-embracing.
I am reminded that both on Second Reading, and subsequently in this debate, my noble friend the Minister has promised that an amendment is to come from the Government at some stage. The amendment will protect the interests and concerns which have been expressed by all speakers in the debate. Therefore I should prefer to wait and listen to what the Minister has to say on the matter in terms of protection of these areas of special interest and to see the amendment which will be put forward in due course by the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: It is a tradition of this Chamber that it gives particular care and attention to the protection of our environment. With its ability to stand back and take a long-term view it is

409
invaluable that it should do so. It is therefore entirely in keeping with that tradition that the three clauses—namely, Clauses 8, 9 and 10—before us today have evoked exceptional interest and a particularly diverse range of proposed amendments and additions.
But, if the clauses are few, they are of considerable breadth and complexity. So I begin, if I may, by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for providing, in the first amendment, one which precisely distils a number of fundamental issues to which many have been giving careful thought. If to distil the issues were to solve them, I would be in the happy position of beginning today's proceedings with full agreement. But, inevitably, that is not the case and for fundamental reasons I cannot do so. However, because the noble Lord has distilled all today's discussion into one amendment, and because there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Government's position and their intentions, I hope Members of the Committee will bear with me if I take some time to reply.
Perhaps I may start by sketching the background and identifying certain general considerations which will be relevant to all our proceedings today. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 8 carries forward and develops, in various ways, the duties on water authorities in the Water Act 1974 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in respect of conservation, access and recreation. There has been a tendency in discussion of the Bill elsewhere to portray our proposals here as too limited. In this area I suspect it is impossible to satisfy everyone, but I hope that Members of the Committee will not lose sight of three particular considerations.
First, the duties—particularly that of further conservation—are stronger than those which attach to any other industry in the private sector or in the public sector. I wonder how many noble Lords would have expected a year ago that any government would place a duty to further conservation on new private companies. That is an unprecedented step. I hope that noble Lords will not lose sight of the fact that it is a unique marriage of private status and public responsibility in this area.
Secondly, the duties are modelled closely on those already applying to the public water authorities. We regard this as a merit because it ensures continuity of practice and legal interpretation. In the last 10 years those duties have been a success. In many areas the water authorities have a proud record in conservation. And for all the well-orchestrated complaints the fact is that the water authorities have increased public access to their land in recent years.
The third consideration is the need for balance. This Chamber rightly places great emphasis on conservation and environmental matters. As I said, it is able to take a long-term view and the Government listen particularly to it on these matters for that reason. But there is always a temptation to go further for the sake of doing so. I know that the Chamber would not resort to that: it would be inappropriate because what we propose is not the minimum we thought might prove acceptable. On the contrary, it is what the Government regard as the right balance
410
between environmental obligations and all the other needs and objectives that need to be served.
I make these three points now, not to make them again, at least for a while. But I hope that Members will not lose sight of them as we move through the many proposals before us today and particularly this first amendment.
The origin of this particular amendment may be speculated upon. The noble Lord collected his checklist of matters in Clause 8 which have been the subject of any doubt in another place or outside this Chamber and sent instructions to his crack team of draftsmen, "Give me a clause that solves all possible problems, squares all obvious circles". The amendment is wide-ranging and sweeping indeed. It cuts out any subordination to the general duties in Clause 7; it cuts out the limitation of the duty to the relevant body's performance of its function. It deals at a stroke with all issues related to disposal of land and makes any possible protection run for ever, in any circumstances, under any future owners; and it frees public access from any sort of constraint or limitation.
Now, all those separate issues are to come before the Committee in the 29 groups of amendments which follow. And that is how we should deal with them: separately, fully and on their merits, which is how, until the last possible moment on Friday, it seemed that we would deal with them. But then the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the adept way to which this place is now well accustomed, pulled the rabbit from the hat. Well, the proposal is here and we must deal with it. The question the Committee must consider is whether it is not so flawed—flawed not in detail but in substance—that it should find no place in the Bill. To assist in this, let me deal in turn with each of the subsections of the amendment and the particular issues that they raise.
I begin with subsection (1), which is by way of preamble and has two parts. Paragraph (b) states simply that the clause shall have effect notwithstanding the duties of the Secretary of State and director in Clause 7; but of course that must be the case because, unlike Clause 8 itself, this new clause does not apply to the Secretary of State and director general.
Well, what are we to infer from this? What we infer is that the proposers have simply evaded the issue. They recognise, I suspect, that if the Secretary of State and director are to be subject to the duties, the relatonship to Clause 7 must be dealt with—and that can only realistically be done in the way the Bill does it—by making Clause 8 and any new clause subject to Clause 7 so far as the Secretary of State and director are concerned; but, to avoid being forced to the sensible position in the Bill, the new clause simply omits the Secretary of State and director from the duties. That loses more than it gains, for all parties involved in these matters should be subject to the same general environmental duties.
Subsection (1)(b) simply dodges the issue. But it is in subsection (1)(a), which deals with the relationship of the duties to functions, that the clause really begins to fall apart. For what do we find? In (1)(a) it is declared that, unlike Clause 8, the duty shall

411
apply whether or not the relevant body is formulating or considering proposals related to its functions. The link to functions, it seems, is to be severed. With one bound, or so it seems to the reader, we are free. But hold on. For further down, in subsections (3) and (4) we are told that actually the duties apply only in respect of the relevant body's functions.
What are we to conclude? We are to conclude, I suggest, that the underlying purpose may have been to end the link to functions; but then inescapably, inevitably, back we find it had to come. The particular conservation and other duties in question are there because they are specially relevant to the functions of the water industry; but they have no special relevance to all those other activities which, in common with all other companies, they may engage in, and which have nothing to do with the functions which Parliament expressly requires the water authorities to perform.
I now turn to subsection (2), with which I must associate subsection (5). Together they define when the duties arise, who are the relevant bodies for purposes of the clause and in what circumstances land is to be protected by them. The key points are not only that subsection (2) applies the duties to any land held by the relevant bodies, but also that they are applied for ever and a day through subsection (5), which imposes the duties on any successor owner who may in future acquire ownership of any water authority land. The difficult issues of the need for special protection for certain special categories of land in special circumstances are dealt with in the most radical way possible.
Once more, with one bound, we are free. Or are we? Subsection (5)(a) certainly tells us that anyone who acquires the land acquires the duties; but then, just to spoil it, subsection (5)(b) starts talking about functions again. The key question is whether, for a body to become a relevant body and acquire the duties, both conditions have to be satisfied or just one. We look to the clause for clarification. Are the two conditions linked by an "and" or by an "or"? As neither appears, we have no clarification. The uncomfortable fact is that the draftsman has collided with the reality the proposers so obstinately ignore. If we are to read in an "and", then the clause does not change the sensible position in the Bill; but if the duty can fall on any person simply because he acquires the land, simply because it was at one time water authority land, and regardless of the acquirer's possibly totally different functions, we have an absurdity.
That absurdity is at its most stark with regard to formerly operational urban land. Never mind whether it has any merit on conservation and amenity terms; forget future—indeed present—needs which might conflict with this: housing, employment and all those other considerations that a responsible government must weigh and a responsible opposition should weigh. What a proposal—a proposal to extend state interference in perpetuity in the long-term use of private property. That on a day when the Labour Party has apparently moved to abandon its Marxist heritage.
412
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said that when considering decisions in the future, the Secretary of State must have the wisdom of Solomon. What he really meant was that the Secretary of State must have the wisdom of Solomon but he is not allowed to exercise it here. If the effect of these subsections is as I have described, I am bound to say that the proposal lacks that essential ingredient to which I previously referred. It lacks balance. It is injudicious. It is unsafe and unsound.
We are then left with the two central subsections, which set out the actual content of the duty. Subsection (3) refers to protecting the environment, furthering conservation and enhancing amenity, much in the terms of the Bill as drafted, and I have no quarrel with them. But subsection (4) imposes a duty to promote public access to water authority land for recreation. That is a different matter. It goes beyond what we propose, and it is dangerous because it is unqualified in any way. First, it covers not just the places of natural beauty and amenity referred to in the Bill as drafted, but all undertakers' land; any urban depot or sewage works to which people might, for reasons best known to themselves, wish to have access for recreation; secondly, it is not subject to any qualification such as, "so far as practicable" or, "reasonably practicable". The undertakers shall promote public access, and that is that. Never mind possible conflicts with operational needs, the costs that could arise, safety considerations, or the owner's liabilities. Thirdly, the undertaker is to promote public access not only so long as he owns that land, but even in the act of sale and thereafter.
As the Committee is aware, the Government support continued protection and indeed enhancement of public access to water industry land, where appropriate and practicable, and subject to reasonable constraints. As we shall see when we debate that topic, nothing in the Bill prejudices that. However, the effect of this subsection would be to sweep away all those reasonable constraints. Here again, the proposal lacks balance. It is unwise. It is too open-ended, and is unsound.
My noble friend Lord Onslow raised the important point of the assurance that I gave at an earlier stage. I fully take on board the necessity to bring the matter to the Committee's attention as soon as possible, but until I have heard all that the Committee has to say it is difficult for me to bring it forward. Of course I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, what the amendments are until we have listened to and considered what the Committee says. The noble Lord's interpretation of listening and considering is rather different from mine.
I have now reviewed each of the subsections and all the key issues the proposed new clause raises. In each respect the clause is found to be fatally flawed—flawed not just in details or technicalities which we would happily leave our draftsmen to disentangle for us, but in its fundamentals. Time and again it evades issues or contradicts itself. At every turn it collides with reality.
The proposed amendment has nonetheless served a useful purpose: it has focused on major issues and allowed us to take a broad view, as we should; and

413
for that I thank the noble Lord who proposed it. That being so, I hope that he does not feel bound to press it to a Division. If he does so, then I am bound to advise the Committee that, being so flawed in its fundamentals, and scattering its shot in all directions, it should find no place in the Bill.
Where then would that leave us? It would leave us where we were on Friday, before the rabbit was pulled from the hat—with 29 sets of amendments which enable us to deal, separately and on their merits, with all the different issues that these clauses raise. I can assure the Committee that from this Bench we shall approach them in an open and constructive manner. We have already said that we should, and in due course will, find a means to deal with the main outstanding difficulty: the need to provide some permanent protection for sites of particular conservation and amenity value. The noble Lord tried to pre-empt my assurance to the Committee on day one by dividing on the second amendment. I repeat that assurance again. I hope on reflection that Members of the Committee will not spurn it. Our minds are open and they will remain so on all the following issues and matters on which I look forward to hearing the views of Members of the Committee.
4 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl one short question. He referred to the continuing protection of conservation and amenity values. Does "amenity" include recreation?
The Earl of Caithness: There is a considerable amount of recreation on water authority land at the moment. As I said, it has been increased in the last 10 years. That too is a matter which we shall be debating.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always pleased when the noble Earl feels it necessary to depart from the departmental brief and go to the Conservative Central Office brief—or is it the Prime Minister's speech writer who wrote the piece about former Marxist traditions in the Labour Party? I do not think that comes from Marsham Street. I shall save myself the pleasure of responding to the noble Earl's speech until I have dealt with the remarks of other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
It has been a helpful debate, not least because it has revealed an all-party, I would say a universal, concern that the Bill as drafted does not provide the full degree of protection, particularly continuity of protection for the environment, which not just pressure groups and interest groups but the people of this country as a whole expect from us in going through a Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was particularly concerned about the danger of overlap with Clause 8. But I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, dealt with that very effectively. Our new clause refers in subsection (3) to,
"any matters to which section 8 below refers".
As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested, it is intended as a general statement of the principles
414
which ought to be adopted in considering Clauses 8, 9 and 10. As the Minister rightly reminded us, all of those are concerned with the protection of the environment. Again as he rightly reminded us, these are extremely complex measures.
Our concern is that complexity in this case has not produced clarity. At the end of the day what we need is clear and unambiguous commitments to the protection of the environment. Particularly with the subordination of Clause 8 to Clause 7, that is simply not available under Clause 8 as it is drafted. Our tabling Amendment No. 91A on Thursday afternoon was an attempt to help the Government rather than the reverse. It was an attempt to clarify the whole range of issues which, as the Minister rightly said, are embodied in the 29 groups of amendments to be considered today.
We take the view that it does not matter how sympathetic the Government will be to the 29 groups of amendments. I do not know whether I am right in drawing the conclusion that the Minister will be sympathetic to some of them. Maybe I am too naive and anticipating too much, but he certainly seemed to indicate that there was a degree of concern which the Government shared on these matters. However, as Clauses 8, 9 and 10 passed through another place with inadequate amendment they will still be inadequate to protect the environment. If that is the case, then as we rise at the end of the evening we shall be very pleased to have achieved more.
However, I do not think that is what the people of this country want. I think that they want in the first instance not just amendments at the margin. They want those, and we shall pursue them. But they want a clear statement of the Government's intention not to allow water privatisation to damage our environment. It is not a question of imposing new duties on anybody; water authorities are at present under public control. As citizens of this country, ultimately we have the power through our democratic process to control what the water authorities do with our land which is in their ownership. It is our land; it is the people's land. That is above all what the amendment is intended to protect.
I do not think that we would be right to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we should wait for the Government's amendments. The Minister himself in his reply did not indicate that we should do that. He suggested, I think rightly, that we should continue to discuss Clauses 8, 9 and 10 as they are before the Committee and that he and the Government would take into account what amendments required to be brought forward as a result of the Committee's discussion. I take that to be the correct view.
As we have the responsibility of putting down amendments at this stage, we should for our part seek to secure the best result on Clauses 8, 9 and 10 and in the new clause preceding Clause 8 that we can, and that should be the basis on which the Government will consider what further amendments are required. I see no constitutional difficulty in that; no argument against our amendment that the Government have given a necessarily imprecise—I

415
am not complaining—indication of future concessions. In order to help clarify the Government's mind, we must do the best we can. I have no doubt that my friends who have prepared the amendment will be delighted with the phrase, "crack team of draftsmen", but it is much less cynical and much less instrumental than the Government seem to think.
I listened with great care to what the noble Earl said about our amendment. Until he came almost to the penultimate line, I did not find any serious or effective criticism of the drafting. The one case where I think we are at fault is in the failure to put "and" or "or" between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (5). If I were to say to the noble Earl that yes, he indicated that "or" would be preferable and if he agreed to the amendment I would ensure that at Report stage the word "or" was inserted, would he then agree to the amendment? I think not. Of course he would not, because it is nothing like as important a matter as he claims.
However, that was the only defect of any substance which was brought forward against the amendment because, as a whole, it deals with the problems which are before the public mind. It deals with the problem that Clause 8 in particular only refers to proposals which come before the undertakings. It deals with the problem that all the protections in Clause 8 are subordinate to the profit-making obligation in Clause 7. It deals with the problem that the obligations do not continue after the undertakings dispose of the land, whether to a third party or not, and even to a subsidiary, as my noble friend Lady White set out very clearly. The amendment deals with that problem. The government clause does not deal wih it. The amendment defines more clearly than the Government have ever done in Clause 3 the nature of the duties to protect the environment. It deals in subsection (4) with the question of public access to land, which is inadequately dealt with in the clauses as we have them.
In his opening remarks, the Minister sought to suggest that these were unprecedented obligations on private companies. I suggest to the Committee that these are unprecedented private companies. What they have is complete control of a natural monopoly on something that is essential to all of us. Any company, private or public, which has the privilege of supplying the British people with something which is essential to them, and supplying it on a monopoly basis, must have extra obligations imposed upon it. The British people require that as consumers of water, as inhabitants of this country and as those who are concerned with the preservation and conservation of this country's environment. It is on those bases that I move this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely it is a total waste of time to walk around in circles. The noble Lord knows perfectly well—he has said it before—that arithmetic will mean that he loses this matter. On Thursday night, by sweet reason, eloquence and powerful argument, my noble friend Lord Caithness was persuaded to do something. I think this Chamber will listen to reason. My noble friend Lord Caithness
416
has said that he will come forward with an amendment which will deal very fully with this matter. Obviously, we should like to hear a lot more about what is contained in that amendment. I am totally in agreement with what the noble Lord wants to do; but I think that walking around in circles to a pre-determined mathematical result is a waste of everybody's time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am the first to congratulate the noble Earl in achieving success with his amendment on Thursday night. I think that was well worth doing. But I have to remind the noble Earl that what he contemptuously described as walking around in circles—or what outside this Chamber could be described as walking around in a circle down to the polling station and back again—is rather an important part of our democracy. It is important for our democracy that we express our opinions. People outside this Chamber, as well as Members on these Benches, expect us to express our opinions as clearly as we can. We do not always do so in the expectation of immediate success, but in the expectation that people will understand that what we are saying is right. I think this amendment is right. I hope I shall not have to make a second peroration on this amendment and that the Committee will be prepared to proceed to a Division.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91 A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amherst, E.

Hughes, L.

Ampthill, L.,

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Blyth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bottomley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe B.

Buckmaster, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chitnis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mais, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra. L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Phillips, B.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rea, L.

417

Reilly, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Somers, L.

White, B.

Soper, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stedman, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Annaly, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Auckland, L.

Knutsford, V.

Balfour, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch. B.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Nelson, E.

Chorley, L.

Norfolk, D,

Clitheroe, L.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pennock, L.

De Freyne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denvent, L.

Radnor, E.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reigate, L.

Effingham, E.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Shannon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sharpies, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Westbury, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Havers, L.

Wolfson, L.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Clause 8 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved].
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 7, line 47, leave out ("the functions of").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 106 and 123 have the same purpose. That purpose is to extend the scope of the conservation and recreation duties set out in Clause 8 so that they apply to all land presently owned by the water authorities.
To a considerable extent the Committee has already discussed this issue and many noble Lords have expressed their concern that private water companies will be able to dispose of their assets, either through sales or by transfer to subsidiary companies, with the result that conservation and recreation duties will no longer apply. The Minister went some way to allaying those concerns by announcing that the Government will come forward with amendments at Report stage to ensure that countryside areas of special conservation and amenity value cannot subsequently be disposed of without a measure of protection.
Provided they are effective, such new provisions will be particularly welcome. However, before the Minister goes away to consider the detail of the Government's amendments, I ask him and the House to consider the need to preserve recreational and amenity use of all water authority land, not just that in special areas or land which is in operational use. The land to which the Minister referred was principally land in highland and upland areas and of quite outstanding beauty and environmental importance. It is right that the Bill should provide proper protection for such land; but what of land of less scenic importance?
The special use of the water authorities' 500,000 acres of land for recreational activities does not end at the bottom of hills. In fact some 70 per cent. of water authorities' land lies outside the specially protected areas which I understand the Minister's amendments will cover. Yet much of that land is immensely important for amenity use. Angling and boating rely on access to reservoirs in the lowlands. Indeed, the reservoirs might have little scenic attraction but nevertheless provide traditional and accessible recreational facilities for the majority of the population who live in urban areas. Much is countryside, which may not qualify for special protection in the same way as land in a national park, but it is often of particular value in providing green lungs for our cities and towns; yet its very proximity to population centres makes it a prime target for development.
We are told that the environmental and recreational duties set out in this clause are to relate only to water undertakers' functions; in other words their operational activities. What of non-operational land? Private water companies will be free to dispose of it or transfer it to a subsidiary company. They could develop it, close down an official recreational facility and restrict or simply end any freedom of

419
access, with only normal planning procedures to satisfy. I am afraid that I have difficulty in understanding how the planning system could prevent a private water company from simply terminating recreational use of land.
Obviously a company will need planning permission if it wants a time-share development on its land because in this case there is a proposed change of use. That would not be the case if the company merely wished to restrict public access. It seems to me that there is very little to prevent a private water company from barring entry, even when the land is operational and when Clause 8 duties are meant to apply. However, if land happens to be non-operational, the stark truth is that the company could bar access or charge heavily for it with impunity.
I am particularly concerned that by excluding non-operational land from the special duties in Clause 8 the Government will be encouraging private water companies to declare land non-functional. In the past there has been very little reason for the water authorities to do so as they have not been able to realise their land assets and at present all water authority land is subject to existing conservation duties. That is set to change and I suggest that the private water companies to be are aware of it. They will have two powerful incentives to declare land non-functional: first, to realise the asset, and, secondly, to escape the special duties in Clause 8. That is quite apart from the fact that future technological developments in the water industry, such as the London ring main, could result in a lot more land becoming non-operational.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 106 aim to close this loophole in the Bill. By removing the reference to functions, the conservation and recreational duties would no longer apply just to water undertakers' operational land. Water companies would be placed under special duties when developing or considering any proposals, not just those relating to their functions. If a water company proposed to sell off land or transfer it to a subsdiary company, it would have to meet the recreation and conservation duties of Clause 8 even if the land were not operational. Amendment No. 123 simply reinforces the change by ensuring that successor bodies and subsidiary companies fall within the scope of the conservation and recreation duties.
I do not accept the argument that the recreation and conservation duties should apply only to water undertakers' operational land. The reason that we should protect existing fishing rights, rights of access, sailing rights, climbing and all the many recreational activities which take place on water authority land and water is that those facilities were made specially available because the water authorities were publicly owned. Where the public has enjoyed access to water authority land, that access should be preserved, whether or not it happens to relate to a function of the water undertaker and whether or not the land happens to be in a national park. If, as is claimed, the planning system will adequately conserve private water company landscape, what then is the point of the special duties in the Bill in the first place?
These amendments will, more than any others, expose what the Bill is about. All privatisations claim to reconcile the interests of consumer and investor. This one, through these few clauses, is also meant to recognise the interests of the environment and recreation. So, when less land will be protected after privatisation than beforehand, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the interests of the investor are being placed above those of the environment or the recreational user. These simple amendments can restore the balance. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was impressed by the simplicity and effectiveness of the amendments when I saw them on the Marshalled List. I am even more impressed having listened to the closely and powerfully argued case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It cannot be the public conception of water privatisation—or if it is, it cannot be to the advantage of this Government—that the effect will be that non-operational land of the water authorities will be, in effect, free from all the environmental constraints that are sought in Clauses 8, 9 and 10.
If that is not the case, and if the Government have a different interpretation of the wording, and if it is the case that non-operational land is indeed covered by those clauses, then we have to hear much better arguments than have been put forward either at Second Reading in this House or throughout the lengthy Committee stages in another place. As the argument stands, it appears that the control exercised over the water and sewerage undertakings and the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the National Rivers Authority and the director general refer primarily if not entirely to the operational aspects of the water undertakings and the operational land that they need.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, rightly said, one effect may well be that water authorities seeking to maximise the return on capital, as they are obliged to do under Clause 7, will seek to declare what would otherwise be operational land as non-operational for this purpose in order to escape the provisions of Clause 8. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want. The noble Lord has pointed out a grave defect in the Bill as drafted. I hope that, without any great need for further partisan discussion, this can be treated as a matter in which all of us in the Committee are in agreement, and that the Government will accept the noble Lord's amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that my noble friend's amendment makes an immense amount of sense. He has presented it extremely clearly. On the grubbiest possible political level, for a Conservative Government to be seen to take away the rights of people to do this or that in furtherance of private interests would not do their electoral chances much good. As I hope that I shall see those happy, smiling faces on the Front Bench after the next election, I sincerely hope that my noble friends will take notice of what my noble friend Lord Norrie has said.

421
That is the matter at its most cynical level. There is a much more important level; namely, that it is right that water, when privatised, should maximise its assets. Part of the problem is that it has not maximised its assets up to now. If one suddenly imposes upon a private company that sort of duty to maximise its assets, one must equally impose upon it strict guidelines and structures through which it maximises those self-same assets. It would be right, therefore, to go very far down the road indicated by my noble friend.
We must be careful that the planning system, certainly in the upland areas and in some of the countryside areas, does not stop the blanket planting of sitka spruce, the grubbing out of hedgerows or some of the other practices about which the environmentalists now complain. That is partly the fault of the tax system which encourages that method. However, having said all that and pointed out what should not need to be pointed out, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take a great deal of notice of what my noble friend Lord Norrie has said.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 93, 106 and 123 deal specifically with certain issues which have already arisen in the amendment that we have just discussed, ending the link between the environmental duties and the functions of the relevant body and extending the duties to subsidiary companies and to others to whom undertakers' land might pass. I hope that the Committee and my noble friend Lord Norrie will bear with me if I reiterate at greater length points that I have already made. These are important matters that we need to set out clearly.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 93 and 106, which concern the conservation and public access duties. Their effect would be that the duty should apply when relevant bodies formulate or consider any proposals, not merely proposals related to their functions. In short, the question is: why should the duties be tied to proposals in relation to the performance of functions? The answer is that this is the essential and inescapable logic of the issues. The functions of the relevant bodies—water supply and sewerage, drainage, pollution control and the rest—interact with the natural environment at every step and to an unsurpassed degree. Application to functions therefore makes perfect sense because conservation of nature should be an integral feature of all those activities.
That is what the Government want, and our draft code of practice breaks new ground in spelling out the detail of what is to be resolved. We shall refer regularly to the draft code of practice. It is in the Library of the House. I hope that noble Lords have seen it. It is headed Draft Code of Practice Conservation, Access and Recreation and it was published on 24th January.
There are many activities in which the appointed companies may engage and rights that they may exercise which cannot be construed as their functions and to which it would be quite unreasonable to have the duty attached. For instance, the companies will no doubt hold some of their cash and reserves in
422
security. Are they to have to further conservation every time they trade such stocks, perhaps having to invest in environmentally friendly companies? Perhaps there is some merit in that, but there is absolutely no merit in legislation whose effect might conceivably be to require it.
Let me take another example which I know is of some concern. Like other utilities, the new companies may from time to time have surplus urban land that the planning authorities may agree should be developed to meet housing needs. But if such proposals cannot be reconciled with a duty to further conservation, proposals of great social importance but possibly of little or no conservation value may prove impossible. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we shall bring forward proposals for the long-term protection of land of particular environmental significance. We can discuss that matter on other amendments, but we cannot and should not have the duty to further conservation attaching to every step that the relevant bodies take, however little intrinsic relevance it has to it.
The criterion applied in the Bill and at present in the current legislation is the right one. Furtherance of conservation is deeply and specially relevant to all the functions of the water industry, but it has no special relevance to all those activities which, in common with all other companies, they may pursue and which have nothing to do with the functions that Parliament has expressly required them to perform. In the duty to further conservation in performing its functions, the Bill places uniquely heavy and important conservation obligations on the water industry. I hope that the Committee will not wish to press them to the unreasonable and impractical lengths which would be involved in widening the duty to bite on any proposals that a relevant body might have on any occasion to consider.
To conclude on the first part of the amendments in this group, perhaps I may offer my noble friend and the Committee some reassurance. "Functions" is a broad term, and very little water authority land is likely at any one time not to be functional. In particular, while all the catchment lands may not be used for operational purposes, they are functional in the sense of being related to the function of water conservation. Hence, any proposals relating to them are likely to be caught by the duty. If my noble friend would feel it helpful for us to make clear that wide interpretation in the Clause 10 code of practice, we shall gladly consider that point.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend on this point. Does that provision take into account the possibility of a water company off-loading land to a subsidiary and then taking it back again, if it should need it, if it wants to get out of its conservation duties?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it, if the land can be termed functional—that is the broad definition and could well apply in the case to which my noble friend alluded—and if the water authority or plc wants that particular land but gives it to a subsidiary in the meantime, it would still be classed

423
as functional and therefore subject to the proposed duties. From what my noble friend said, it may be helpful if we make that clear in the code of practice.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 123, which is separate but linked through discussion. It also deals with an issue that has already been raised. The amendment invites the Committee to add to the relevant bodies to which the duty is to apply
"a successor body or any subsidiary thereof".
The use of the term "successor bodies"—which, in the Bill, means the NRA and undertakers—may create some confusion, but I shall leave that aside. I understand my noble friend to mean bodies to which land or indeed functions might subsequently pass, and also any subsidiary companies. I address that important question of substance.
Perhaps I may deal first with subsidiary or associated companies. To extend the duty to them would be misconceived. The Clause 8 duties bite upon the functions of water bodies, which, as I have said, by their nature have profound implications for the environment. But a subsidiary or associated company of a water or sewerage undertaker will not by definition carry out the appropriate functions because they are for the appointed company itself. Necessarily, it will pursue quite different activities to which the Clause 8 duties may have only tenuous connection or no connection at all.
The same considerations apply in the case of successor bodies to which the land allocated under schemes under Schedule 2 might pass, but with even greater force. The fact is that the great majority of the duties apply in respect of functions, and should so apply, and it is most unlikely that any successor owner would share the functions of the relevant bodies. I am driven therefore to the conclusion that to extend the duties to successor owners and subsidiary bodies would be flawed in logic and irrelevant in practice.
Nevertheless I recognise that my noble friend is drawing the attention of the Committee to an issue which we accept is significant and substantial. This is again the concern that land which is of special value by reason of the purposes to which Clause 8 is directed may not be properly protected if it passes to a successor or subsidiary. I realise that my noble friend went rather wider than that in what he said.
I share my noble friend's concern because in some areas of high environmental or amenity value the water authorities may have established special conservation or access arrangements which there would be no means to secure under subsidiaries or successor owners. That was precisely the concern which I expressed to the Committee last week and which I said we intended to address in an amendment at a later stage. Applying the duties to subsidiary or successor bodies is not in our view a practical option, but others are open and those are the ones we are exploring.
I offer my noble friend the assurance that, while for the reasons I have given we cannot resolve the problem he raises in the manner he proposes, we shall certainly address it by other means. In the
424
circumstances I hope that he will wish to reflect on what I have said, and I shall of course be happy to discuss it with my noble friend who, as the Committee will know, has wide experience of this with the British Trust of Conservation Volunteers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord makes up his mind whether to press this amendment, may I draw his attention to two points about the Minister's reply, which was in some ways helpful? The first is that he is relying substantially on the code of practice in Clause 10. As we shall be showing later today, this code of practice is deeply defective. It lacks statutory authority and it contains a number of provisos that make it much less effective than we should like it to be.
Secondly, the noble Earl is relying on some of the detail in Clause 8, which, as the Minister himself reminded us in response to the previous amendment, has been the subject of a thick cluster of amendments designed to increase its effectiveness. Therefore, any assurances that the Minister gives based on either of those two clauses must be taken subject to a view (which it is not possible to take yet) of the Government's response to the amendments which have been put down to those clauses. Therefore, we must handle these assurances with a very long spoon, if I may put it in that way.
The second point that I want to make is that the Minister has on this occasion, as on previous occasions, given assurances about the Government's intention to table further amendments at a later stage related to land of special conservation value which is not required for operational purposes. He has made a valid and a valuable point about the distinction between functional land and operational land that certainly we should all take account of.
The noble Earl's undertaking to introduce further amendments was based on his undertaking to listen to your Lordships' debate on these amendments. We ought not in any way to curtail our debate on these subjects because of an undertaking to introduce amendments at a later stage; otherwise the amendments themselves might not be as far-reaching as we think they ought to be.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: Before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, replies to the Minister I should like to add a few comments. The Minister has touched on the nub of the whole issue, which we touched on earlier today and which is still recurring. These privatised water companies are not going to be ordinary private companies. They are going to inherit a great tradition of efficient water supply and of responsibility for the lands associated with their operations.
Therefore it is right and proper that two firm responsibilities should be clearly laid on them in this legislation: namely, the water supply side of their activities, and the land ownership side of their activities. I hope that this will come out clearly. I hope too when we debate the amendments that the noble Earl will be proposing later that we shall bear that in mind. However, at this stage I feel that this is something that should be pressed pretty hard, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will do so.
Lord Norrie: My noble friend the Minister has already agreed to come forward with amendments at Report stage to give special protection to countryside with particular conservation and amenity value. In doing so he has been true to his Secretary of State's pledge given to the standing Conference on Countryside sports last month that the Government would carefully listen to debate on these matters. In the same spirit I do not wish to press my amendments today, but I ask my noble friend to maintain the dialogue. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend concludes let me say that I am grateful for that. At least he takes an assurance of mine seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 94A I should point out that this amendment would make it impossible for me to move Amendments Nos. 95 or 96.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 8, leave out from beginning of line 2 to ("so") in line 4.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 94A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 101, 107, 110, 112 and 117. In order to make clear the purport of these amendments I think it is necessary not only to read out the amendments—that is something that is done fairly frequently—but to read out the words that will be omitted or replaced if these amendments are carried, because it is these words (these weasel words) that detract from the confidence that we can be expected to have in the power of Clause 8, which is absolutely fundamental to our argument.
Amendment No. 94A would leave out the words:
"relating to the functions of that body"—
we have debated that issue already in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—
"and, in the case of the Secretary of State and the Director, with their duties under section 7 above".
The Committee has already been reminded that Section 7 refers to the primacy of the profit motive as opposed to the primacy of the environment or the consumer.
Amendment No. 98 leaves out the words:
"have regard to the desirability of protecting".
Amendment No. 101 leaves out:
"take into account any effect".
Amendment No. 107 leaves out:
"have regard to the desirability of preserving".
Amendment No. 110 leaves out the words:
"take into account".
Amendment No. 112 leaves out:
"such steps as are—

(a) reasonably practicable; and

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

Amendment No. 117 leaves out:
"to such extent as it considers desirable".
I shall not weary the Committee with the context of all these phrases, but their very repetition makes it clear that the power of this clause is simply not sufficient to protect the environment as I believe this Committee would wish it to be protected, and as indeed the Government claim it is protected when Ministers make speeches on this subject. We are not requiring in these amendments that the environment should have absolute priority over all other considerations. What we are requiring is that it should have equal consideration with the other functional and financial obligations of the undertakers.
As it stands, the Bill contains a large number of qualifications. We have pointed out some of them and I have no doubt that if one went through the Bill in great detail we could find many more qualifications of a similar kind. The point that I wish to make to the Committee is not that these qualifications are continuations of existing restrictions on water authorities but that they are in themselves an erosion of existing rights. The rights are there now and the fact that Clause 8 is inadequate in these respects takes away those existing rights.
In some of the most attractive parts of the British Isles, we all now have access to land owned by water authorities. We have an assurance that the land owned by water authorities is maintained, conserved and protected by authorities that are in public ownership and responsible to all of us. It is that protection that is to be taken away by privatisation; and the assurances of Ministers, quite frankly, are simply not good enough.
Let us look at the reasons for this. First, in responding to the last amendment, the Minister referred to the draft code of practice which was issued in January. I remind the Committee of what the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Colin Moynihan, said in another place on 22nd March about the codes of practice. He stated at col. 1118 of Hansard:
"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".
Such enforceability may be all right for the present Secretary of State—I am saying nothing against him personally—but if a Secretary of State has an obligation only to take into account how far companies have complied with the code of practice, then I am afraid the history of these matters in the courts has been that on many occasions "taking into account" is treated with a derisory laugh. It is said, "Yes, we took it into account but we went away and did something different." That is what the undertakings are being invited to do. That is what a Secretary of State is being invited to do by the wording of this clause and by the words of Mr. Moynihan.
The protections in this Bill are a weakening, an erosion, of the duties that exist in the Water Act 1973. In the same column, Mr. Moynihan said, that the proposals in the Bill,
"—preserve for the privatised industry all the present duties of the public sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/89; col. 1118.]
That is not true. Section 1 of the 1973 Act established the national policy for water. Section 1(2) states:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure the effective execution of so much of that policy as relates to—"—
among other things—"—
"the use of inland water for recreation;
the enhancement and preservation of amenity in connection with inland water; and
the use of inland water for navigation".
That statement was elaborated in Section 20. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has a copy of the 1973 Act in front of him, although I know that he keeps it by his bedside and has the wording in his head. However, he will recall that these are duties on the Secretary of State and they are far different from duties to "take into account" a code of practice in considering whether a company has complied with the law. To that extent also the present proposals are an erosion of the protection that the public has under existing legislation.
In the present Bill there are no such positive aims as were set out in the 1973 Act. The Government have resisted any suggestion that there should be such obligations. Our amendments do no more than restore the position in this respect—and there are many others—to that which already obtains under the Water Act 1973.
The third argument that is sometimes used to support this code of practice is that there is a fallback position of planning legislation. Again, Mr. Moynihan—who seems to be taking all the stick on these matters—suggested at col. 117 of Hansard on 22nd March, that:
"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".
Planning controls are simply not adequate, as everyone knows who understands about these matters. Planning controls do not apply to change of rural land use between one type of land use and another. The classes of use are not like that. What is required—and this I should have thought was a conclusion generally accepted by those who have dealt with planning law over the years—is that there has to be a positive land management plan. This has to be capable of being called in aid when new proposals for changes in land use arise.
We are talking about land owned publicly by the water authorities which will be transferred to the private water companies. At the moment all the new water companies will be required to do is to take account of environmental and conservation interests. However, their fundamental obligation under Clause 7 will be to realise the highest commercial value from their land holdings. Therefore the Bill as drafted is significantly weaker than the 1973 Act. The code of practice is not legally enforceable.
If we are to maintain the protection that the public already has, if we are to put into legislation the assurances that have been made by Ministers, it is necessary for us to approve these amendments this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Each of these amendments has approximately the same objective; namely, to place upon those who are given powers or duties under the Bill the obligation of carrying out the powers and duties conferred upon them irrespective of all other factors, however important from the public point of view and however unavoidable those factors may be.
Perhaps I may give just one example. If we look at Amendment No. 107, it refers to page 8, line 19. Instead of being told,
"to have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to areas of… natural beauty",
and so on, the Secretary of State and others would be required, if the amendment were accepted, to preserve, irrespective of other factors, that freedom of access. At first sight of course that sounds absolutely splendid. But let us suppose that there really is a vital need for a new road. It may be a vital need expressed locally because of a landslide that has destroyed an existing road and another one has to be found; or it may be that it is accepted by most people concerned that there has to be a new trunk road. We have disputes over trunk roads going through national parks and areas of natural beauty. The one alongside Loch Lomond is a very obvious example to quote.
We really cannot legislate in an absolute way which makes it impossible for Ministers and others responsible to take these decisions irrespective of other important factors affecting the public interest. We never have legislated in that way. If we were to accept these amendments, moved with great sincerity by the noble Lord, we should be embarking upon what is from the point of view of legislation by Parliament a new process. I therefore do not see how my noble friend could accept these amendments.
So much for that general point. But if we look at the first one, Amendment No. 94A, where the noble Lord seeks to leave out those first three lines or so at the top of page 8—he read them out; there is no need for me to do so again—we would find that we were being inconsistent because we have included in the words here:
"so far as may be consistent with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of [the body concerned] … and, in the case of the Secretary of State and the Director, with their duties under section 7 above".
I am sorry, I had to read it again. I think that I had to in order that noble Lords could follow my argument. If we leave that out, we shall be indirectly causing an inconsistency in the Bill, partly with its own contents and partly with other enactments. That is another way in which we should not legislate. So again, if it is not an inappropriate expression in the circumstances, with due regard to what the noble Lord has said, I do not see how my noble friend on the Front Bench can accept these amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not intend to speak for very long or to be repetitious because much of what I wanted to say has already been well said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not think it is right

429
to say that when the water services are privatised the water authorities and the Director General of Water Services would be put in a rather less onerous position than under the original Water Act of 1973. We are concerned with reasonable practicability, and I feel that that word should be put into the Bill. As for the argument that the noble Lord made about the road bypass, that is certainly valid but one has to be reasonably practical and some decisions must be taken which perhaps go against what we are trying to write into the Bill. I hope it will be agreed that what is there at the moment is hopelessly inadequate.
The Minister obviously feels that we on this side of the House are not taking his assurances as literally as perhaps we should. I sincerely hope that we shall have some good amendments with some teeth when we return to Report stage. But what I, and I dare say other noble Lords, have heard and seen on television or on the radio does not give us any future confidence. The Committee may or may not know from the "World at One" programme that at least £2 million, and probably something up to £30 million, is being set aside for advertising the water companies' privatisation. On the business programme on BBC1 we heard interviews with people who know—not politicians but professors who have studied the water industry—talking about the enormous costs of becoming a plc: an increase which would be put on the water authorities. Something like 50 per cent. extra cost was quoted by a professor from Nottingham. That means that the pressure will be on. We know already that the North West Water Authority is advertising for a surveyor in land management to bring in property companies and the rest. The water authorities will have to look to all their assets, and they may push pretty hard for things that we in this House may not wish to see developed.
I totally agree with what the noble Earl said earlier. There may be areas which were formerly reservoirs, and they may have potential for reasonable development. However, I do not share his view that we shall need all these extra houses in the South-East. Because we have fewer school-leavers now, I believe the pressure will be off housing. I hope it is for his benefit because he is housing spokesman. I do not think that I shall see it, but I hope that I live long enough to see whether I am proved right or wrong. I do not take the statistics too literally; but that is why we are concerned.
The amendment that I really want to speak to is Amendment No. 101 which talks about preventing "any deleterious impact". What do we mean by that? It has been drawn to my attention that it is not the normal problem of development. Draining the marshes is going over the top concerning water drainage. I am sorry to have to tell the Committee that I am about to leave the Isle of Wight, but I can give two examples where the Royal Society for Nature Conservation has become extremely worried because the local water authority, for whom I have a lot of respect, has done extensive drainage at Alverstone and Afton Marshes. But damage has been done; there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Grainger Davies, who used to run the water authority on the island, is already working for the NRA and he knows the area. I have every confidence
430
that he will understand this although he will have to change sides somewhat quickly because he was very much for promoting new water mains and sewerage outfalls while he was with us. That is the area we want to have covered, and I believe most people will accept that. All the rest are there to try to strengthen it and they perhaps may give greater force. If we could return to the position that existed in 1973, I should be satisfied.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to refer briefly to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Unless I misunderstand the amendment, I do not think it would preclude roads being built through these areas where they are necessary. Access is the matter which is to be protected, access by the public to the areas listed in the amendment and in the Bill. There is no difficulty about access over a road. One builds a footbridge and can cross from one side to the other. Then the problem of access is solved. Our motorway system involves access bridges for pedestrians, cattle and other animals on almost all our motorways, especially those in rural areas. That was a red herring referred to by the noble Lord in an attempt to illustrate the problem.
As I see it, the intention of the amendments is to make sure that these private companies do not fence off and deny access to areas which were previously open to access by members of the public. If I understand correctly the mind of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he realises that private owners often fence off areas which previously were not fenced off. That is the kind of access that we are talking about. I do not see any difficulty for the Government in accepting the amendments.
Baroness Lockwood: Not only will the Bill if passed unamended weaken the protection that we have already under the 1973 Act, but the very fact that the Bill is before us and is being considered weakens the present arrangements that have been operating under the Act. The National Trust and a whole range of other associated conservation bodies are already concerned about their relationship with the water authorities under the threat of the Bill.
As I pointed out in the debate last week on an earlier amendment, there are signs that the water authorities are already beginning to backtrack on some of the arrangements that they have previously followed. I gave the example last week of the Peak District where the fencing of land by water authorities has taken place without consultation with the park authorities. In the Lake District there has already been some confrontation between ramblers and riders. The North-West water officers are already disinclined to support any specific commitment to dedication of any route to the public in advance of privatisation. We are already seeing an erosion of some of the rights which have been established on a voluntary basis. That concern should be taken seriously by the Government.
In defence of the Bill the Government are relying to a large extent on the code of practice, but, like any other, the code of practice is not mandatory and does not apply to non-operational land. Again, as I pointed out on a previous amendment debated last

431
week, taking for example the Yorkshire Water Authority, out of the 75,000 acres owned by that authority, only 16,000 are operational. Despite the fact that in some senses the Government seem to be claiming that only 5 per cent. of the land owned by the water authorities is non-operational, in some areas a large proportion of the land is non-operational. We shall not have the protection of the code of practice in relation to that, whatever protection a code of practice might bring.
Secondly, the Minister and his colleagues in another place rely on the present planning procedures. My noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out that planning procedures do not apply in all cases. However, during the past year a series of decisions was made by the planning authorities. Of the appeals which were lodged, only 30 per cent. were successful in respect of the national parks of the country. So if there is currently such a lack of support for conservation under the planning appeals it would appear that we do not have a strong base on which to rely for protection under the Bill.
I hope that Members of the Committee will support the series of amendments which seeks to leave out all the conditional clauses relating to these provisions of the Bill and thereby strengthen our rights under the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, appears to have the impression that the amendments concern only access. Amendment No. 101, instead of taking into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area, inserts the words "prevent any deleterious impact". Will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say whether I am right in believing that it is not about access but about the impact of an event which may happen in the area on the various aspects of the area?
Will the noble Lord also tell the Committee whether it is true that the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renton about the roads will apply? If in the public interest a road is required and most people believe that it should be built, will that be prevented by the amendment so that there will be no way in which building could occur? I suspect that the noble Lord knows more about planning law than I do, but it appears to me that the amendment would override anything that could happen.
I believe that in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Ross, took the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton about the roads and probably will not support the amendment. I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thinks about the issue.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to that issue. I do not regard a road as having a deleterious impact.
Baroness Blatch: The last remark probably makes the point. The word "protect" in Amendment No. 98 is an uncompromising alternative. While the road may not have a deleterious effect its excavation works and building certainly will. If the amendments
432
are accepted the requirement and demand to protect will not allow for even short-term deleterious effect or damage. To add to "protect" the words "and conserve" goes even further down the road of putting an impossible constraint on the authorities to carry out their normal operational work. If the words "protect and conserve" were accepted it would be important to draw a distinction between the conservation of buildings owned by the authorities and those owned by other landowners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not yet spoken to Amendment No. 99, which will be dealt with later.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. I shall withdraw my comments and leave them as read when the amendment is dealt with. I believe that Amendment No. 101 is included in the group. Again, the absolute constraint of preventing any deleterious effect thwarts any short-term operational work which will be required to be undertaken by the companies. Therefore, such an absolute constraint is not acceptable and one must return to what is suggested in the Bill: that a duty should be put upon the operators to have regard for reinstatement and restoration.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, approaches the whole question of this and other parts of the Bill under two definite misconceptions, both of which he has highlighted again today. The first misconception to which the noble Lord continually refers is that profit is the prime motive. Profit is not the prime motive; the customer is the prime motive. I have previously dealt with that fact in great detail. I know that the noble Lord will not listen and that he will continue to pursue his own angle. However, I hope that other Members of the Committee— —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, but the noble Earl must not confuse listening with agreement. I listened carefully to what he said, but I disagree. On that issue, so does his noble friend Lord Nugent. It is not that I do not listen to him but that I do not agree.
The Earl of Caithness: I am delighted and am now reassured by the noble Lord. There was a moment when I was not quite so sure.
The second misapprehension under which the noble Lord labours relates to this part of the Bill, because he says that the duties are weaker than in the 1973 Act. The duties are very much in the same terms. In addition, I point out to the Committee that in Clause 7 the Secretary of State is under a duty to secure the proper carrying out of the water undertakers' functions. That includes their duties under Clause 8. One can take that forward to the enforcement angle and I refer Members to Clauses 20 to 23, with which we shall come to deal. Let us be absolutely clear that there is no weakening of the environment and recreational duties.

433
I turn to deal with the amendments before the Committee, all of which seek to strengthen in various ways the terms of the general environmental duties in Clause 8. They are separate amendments, not consequential upon one another, but it is useful to discuss them together. Amendment No. 97 concerns the provision in the Bill as at present drafted which makes the duty to further conservation apply only so far as it is consistent for the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of the relevant body; and in the cases of the Secretary of State and director with their duties under Clause 7. Amendment No. 94A deletes the words relating to the functions of that body. Amendments Nos. 98, 101, 107, 110 and 112 seek to tighten up the terms of particular duties in the clause.
I deal first with the need for consistency with the functions of the body in question. There are three aspects of the proposal to which I must draw Members' attention. First, this limitation exists in present legislation. From what has been said about such matters in another place and today by some Members, I feared that some may see in the Bill as drafted some deep ploy related to the sale of the companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I ask Members of the Committee to note that limitation has been seen as sensible by our predecessors, and I shall argue that it is just as sensible today.
My second point is the simple reason why it is sensible. The importance of the words in question is so that we do not impose on the relevant bodies conflicting objectives with no indication of how they are to be reconciled; for, in cases, the duty to further conservation may conflict with the duty to supply wholesome water, or effectively to sewer the area, or any other of the undertakers' statutory duties. We should not allow that if we are to attack the problem in a rational way.
In circumstances where that conflict arises I suggest that the duty to further conservation should not apply. It is a point upon which I have previously commented. Much as we may wish to further conservation, the Committee must surely recognise that there can be circumstances where that should take second place, when, as here, that conflicts with the essential and life-sustaining functions of this industry upon which the community depends. There is an alternative. We could adopt a weaker conservation duty which, because it could not inhibit essential water supplies, sewerage and other services, could run more widely. The duty could be drafted simply, "to have regard to conservation". I suggest that more would be lost than gained by such an approach.
The third consideration is a practical one and I believe it provides some reassurance. The fact is that the circumstances where the duty to further conservation will be inhibited by the need for consistency with other functions will be very, very few. If there were many cases in recent years I do not doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would rightly have drawn them to our attention. I heard him refer to none.
On these grounds I suggest that much the wiser course is to adhere to the terms of the Bill. Any other
434
approach could entail conflict with essential services and might for that reason bring conservation itself into needless disrepute.
Let me turn now to the second element of the amendment—to delete the reference to the duties of the Secretary of State and the director under Clause 7. I suggest this also would not be sensible. The House has already debated the relationship of Clauses 7 and 8 in another context. Suffice it to repeat here that the subordination of Clause 8 to Clause 7 is very narrow. Let me emphasise that it does not apply to anything the companies may do in the performance of their own duties. The companies' conservation duty will not be directly constrained by customer protection, economy and efficiency. The Committee should draw comfort from that, The qualification applies only in the case of the Secretary of State and director and is to avoid conflict between the duty to further conservation and the duties placed upon them in Clause 7 as to how they exercise their enforcement powers.
In practice the occasions for such conflict will be very few, not least because among the Secretary of State's obligations is the duty to secure that the companies properly carry out their duties, and that includes the duty to further conservation.
I conclude then that the constraints which the amendment seeks to delete are ones which in practice are likely to arise only very rarely: while we must provide for them, they need cause the Committee little concern. The essence of the matter is this: if you want a strong conservation duty of the kind we are preserving, there must be some circumstances, where it conflicts with other essential services or functions, where it is important but should not be seen as of overriding importance. We must achieve a proper and sensible balance in these matters. That is, I suggest, what the Bill as drafted achieves.
Amendment No. 98 asks us to delete:
"have regard to the desirability of protecting",
historic buildings and to insert "protect". As Members of the Committee well know, there is general legislation for the protection of historic buildings. Where such buildings are listed or otherwise subject to statutory protection, there are obligations which fall equally on all owners, whoever they may be and whether in the public or private sector. Now in this clause, as in current legislation, we impose on the water industry a special and more wide-ranging obligation in terms as set out in the Bill. That is not unreasonable since pipe-laying and drainage and other water industry operations can affect historic features. Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that this is a special duty. That duty and the code of practice clearly involve obligations which go beyond what is expected of other bodies.
I submit that it would be quite unreasonable to press these obligations even further. Protection of historic features is a laudable objective, to which we require the water industry always to have regard, but we cannot bind the industry always to secure it. It must always be a consideration, but given other duties and requirements, it cannot always be an obligation.

435
Amendment No. 101, which was very much to the forefront of the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, deals with natural beauty and amenity and asks us to delete the present term and to insert: "prevent any deleterious impact". My concern here is a related one. It is going too far to ask to require that the particular result be achieved, for often deleterious impacts cannot reasonably be foreseen. We can ask the relevant bodies to have regard for the issues, but it is not practical to ask them to ensure the outcome. Equally it is surely unrealistic to make the obligation mandatory. Other factors may intrude; particular circumstances may arise which make it unreasonable because of the weight of other circumstances to do what the amendment proposes. The amendment imports a degree of rigidity which is wholly unrealistic.
Amendments Nos. 107 and 110 in respect of the public access duty are similarly flawed. The relevant bodies are to be told to preserve public access. But that gives no allowance for the flexibility—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Renton which we must allow. For what happens when their functions require restriction of access? What happens when for proper conservation reasons it may be necessary to close off access to particular land? Those are but some of the problems.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples. I am sure that Members of the Committee will know the problems faced by national parks on the question of access, and I quote from an article in The Times of 24th April on this very subject which brought to everybody's attention the fact that there was a helicopter airlift used in the drive to repair the dales' paths, which stated:
"Each year up to 120,000 pairs of boots trample across 40 miles of footpaths in the three Peaks turning them into unsightly scars, more than 100 yards wide in some places and stripping away the natural vegetation of the area".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wants it both ways. It is clear that already in the national parks it is not possible to have it both ways.
What happens to Schedule I birds under the Wild Life and Countryside Act? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wants access anywhere, any time, in the nesting season close to Schedule I birds but he also wants conservation. It is not possible to have both. If human beings are present in those circumstances, Schedule I birds will not nest anywhere near there.
Amendment No. 112 takes us into the recreation duty. We are asked to substitute "all particular steps" for "reasonably practicable steps". By doing that the Committee may exclude all regard for financial consideration. How in the practical world in which we live can that be realistic?
Finally I turn to Amendment No. 117 which relates to Clause 8(4) and which provides the new duty on the NRA generally to promote conservation and recreation, and would delete the qualification that the duty is to be discharged only to such extent as the NRA considers desirable.
Clause 8(4) is an important new provision. It removes in respect of the NRA two significant
436
constraints on the present water authorities in relation to conservation works and recreation provision.
In the first place water authorities can at present only undertake works for the improvement or enhancement of rivers to the extent that such works form part of or are ancillary to the performance of one of their main functions. We believe this is an unreasonable restraint. It is important that there should be a body able to take steps to conserve and enhance the river environment. Often of course such activities will fall to riparian owners or local planning authorities, but the NRA should not be inhibited by lack of powers from playing its part. We would not expect use of the powers to be substantial in the next few years: necessarily most environmental work by the NRA will be part of its drainage, water resources or pollution control functions. Nonetheless, the power is an important one.
With recreation the position is similar. There are already a number of co-ordinating or promotional bodies such as regional councils for sport and recreation and local authorities. The NRA will not want to usurp their contributions. At the same time it must not be limited in its recreation provision to putting its own rights over water to recreational use. It should, for example, be able to help manage effective recreational uses of rivers where there is no navigation authority or give support to local voluntary bodies to do this. And there must be a body which, irrespective of its other regulatory functions, is able to take a clear overall view of the development of recreation on rivers where this is needed. Again it should not be expected that the NRA will make dramatic use of these powers in the short term. However, it is important that from the start it should have the powers to promote recreational uses when it sees clear need and there is no other body well placed to assist.
Against this background it follows that we do not believe that the qualification,
"to such an extent as it considers desirable",
should be deleted. Recreational opportunities on rivers will continue to be provided primarily by riparian owners and there are other promotional and co-ordination bodies whose role should not be usurped. The NRA's task should be supportive: when things need to be done to facilitate recreational uses of rivers, and there is no other body better placed to do them, then it is right that some obligation should fall upon the NRA. But it is the NRA which itself is in the best position to judge this I suggest that,
"to such extent as it considers desirable",
precisely expresses this position and should be retained. An unqualified duty is not necessary and would be beyond what the NRA could discharge. The NRA is enabled by this clause to act in relevant circumstances and it would be wrong to go beyond that.
I have been through all the proposed amendments very thoroughly. I suggest that the present terms have served us well in the past. They are consistent with reason and with the need for balance and discretion. They will require the relevant bodies to protect the environment effectively in the future, just as they have done in the past.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Foot: I do not know whether the noble Earl will welcome any support from me but I should like to add a few words in support of what he had to say about the principles behind the amendment. Incidentally, in taking this view I do not expect to make myself very popular on these Benches.
Clause 8 imposes a duty upon various people and in the remaining part of Clause 8 the extent and the type of that duty is defined. Is not the argument between the noble Earl and the proposers of the amendment in principle that the noble Earl says that you cannot define that duty in absolute terms and that you must define it in qualified terms. I believe he is right. It follows that if you attempt to do the impossible and impose an absolute duty in all circumstances, whatever they may be—even if there is conflict between one environmental interest and another—you do not strengthen the legislation but weaken it. You are passing into law something completely impractical that has to be regarded in the real world.
Therefore, on that ground alone, the noble Earl is right in saying to the Committee that it would be better to leave the words as they stand. It may be, of course, that at a subsequent stage we might be able to think of better words of qualification than presently contained in the Bill, but that is something for the future. On the general principle as to whether one should impose absolute duties in all circumstances, I am on the side of the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for so clearly putting exactly the message I was trying to get across.
Baroness White: Before my noble friend responds, can the Minister clear my mind on one point? I should know, but I am not certain, how far the duties of the authority under Clause 8(4) extend. The subsection states that it is,
"the duty of the Authority, to such extent as it considers desirable, generally to promote"
and then gives the various desirable areas in which it should do so. However, what happens to the subsidiary companies I was concerned about? Does the authority's word extend in any way to them or is it the position, as I suppose, that it does not cover them at all? Does it apply only, in fact, to operational land? That was the matter exercising the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. Some of the most undesirable environmental effects may well arise from the activities of the subsidiary companies, not the core company which is carrying out its duties of the water supply and sewerage.
The Earl of Caithness: Much hinges on whether or not the land is functional, which is a point I covered earlier for my noble friend Lord Onslow. If the land is not functional and not involved with the operations and, therefore, is surplus to requirements, there is the assurance I have given the Committee that I will be bringing forward an amendment which might involve some of that land, but might not, in which case there is the proper planning procedure to go through and, indeed, other planning
438
requirements which are relevant should the land be in such a condition.
Lord Ross of Newport: With respect to my noble friend, who is a lawyer and therefore takes a legal attitude to these matters, one of the arguments I put forward is that we are seeking to strengthen the clause for the very reason that the noble Earl has just mentioned. There is a grave risk. We know the new companies will hive off land to subsidiary companies. They will do it immediately. That is what they did in the Isle of Wight when we stupidly allowed Bembridge Harbour to be sold to private individuals. They immediately set up two companies, put all the properties into one of them, and then put the rents up. They even made people pay rent to park next to the beach. That is what will happen.
With the greatest respect, it may well be that my noble friend is right in legal terms. However, on reading the clause, it is obviously weak. If it does not apply to subsidiaries there is no point in wasting our time in arguing. I beg the noble Earl to take that on board.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I very much enjoyed the Minister's final remark that the amendments he intends to table on Report may deal with the problem, but, there again, they may not. That is the problem we face. We do not know what amendments the noble Earl intends to table, nor does he. We have to go on stating our case regardless of imprecise commitments. They cannot be called commitments.
We must be grateful to the Minister. He did, as he said, thoroughly go through the amendments and explain the Government's position. I pay tribute to him for the serious way in which he has treated the amendments. The interesting point about both the Government's case from the Front Bench and the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Foot, is that they all depend on the claim that the amendments are absolute; that under Clause 8 they put absolute obligations on the undertakers, the authorities and the Secretary of State.
These are lawyers who are intervening from the Back Benches. I am not a lawyer, but I have always thought that in looking at obligations of this kind you look not only at the nature of the offence but also at enforcement. Enforcement does not come under this part of the Bill but under Part II; in particular, in the part of Part II which deals with the modification of orders of appointment of the undertakers. The sanction which the Secretary of State or the Government have against undertakers who break the conditions under Clauses 8, 9 and 10 comes in orders that they may make with respect to the appointments of the undertakers.
I look in particular at Clause 20(5) and the restrictions placed upon the ability of the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services to make, in this case, provisional orders. Subsection (5) states that they cannot make orders if,
"the apprehended contraventions are, of a trivial nature … that the company has agreed to take and is taking all such steps as it appears to him for the time being to be appropriate for the company to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating

439
compliance with the condition or requirement in question; or … that the duties imposed on him by Part I of this Act preclude the making or, as the case may be, the confirmation of the order".
It is in the enforcement that the qualification of an absolute duty comes and unless there is absolute enforcement, which there clearly is not in Part II, then there is not an absolute duty in Part I and the objections made to our amendments on the ground that they are absolute have some force. They are intended to be much stronger than Clause 8 as it stands, but they are only absolute if both the duties and the enforcement are absolute. That is far from being the case. What has never been said in opposing these amendments is that the existing wording is satisfactory. There has been no defence of the repeated words, "have regard to" or "the desirability of"; there has been no denial that all of these so-called obligations and duties designed to protect the environment are subordinate to Clause 7. In case it is thought that I have not read Clause 7 it refers to both the functions of the undertakings and the duty to make a reasonable return on capital.
The primacy of the water and sewerage functions and the primacy of the shareholders' return on capital have not been denied in any of the responses to these amendments. Unless I and those on these Benches can be convinced that the Government intend to strengthen the wording of Clause 8 in order to make the protection more effective, then we are not going to be convinced that the Government have got Clause 8 right. There is a long way to go before we have the protection that will satisfy the environmental lobby and those who use the land owned by the water authorities. We have not got anywhere near that yet and I feel it is necessary to take the decision of the Committee.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 94A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gregson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L.

440

Listowel, E.

Rea, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Monson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walston, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lawrence, L.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Annan, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Balfour, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Middleton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Mottistone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chorley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Radnor, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rees, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Killearn, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 98 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 8, line 9, leave out ("have regard to the desirability of protecting") and insert ("protect and conserve").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 99; I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 102, 108 and 120. The Committee will see that the amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lady Birk and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. My noble friend is, fortunately for her, in Spain at the moment and gives her apologies for not being present. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has given me his apologies for having to leave before we reach this debate. Therefore I am on my own, but I shall speak long enough for my noble friend and the noble Lord.
These amendments have a common theme. They seek to ensure that Clause 8 adequately reflects the need to preserve our heritage and particularly the need to protect our archaeological heritage. Amendment No. 99 may appear to be a variant on Amendment No. 98. It leaves out the words in line 9 of page 8,
"have regard to the desirability of protecting",
and inserts not just "protect" but " protect and conserve". "Conserve" in heritage and archaeological terms has a specific meaning which goes beyond the meaning of "protect". It is worth saying a few words about this because those who are concerned with archaeology and with the preservation of ancient buildings, monuments and antiquities and indeed with the preservation of industrial archaeology—machinery, factories and documents—realise that this must apply not only to the protection of objects and artefacts from accidental damage but also to their conservation and to ensuring that they are available in the most effective way for the use and enjoyment of scholars and of the general public.
As with the previous amendment we are far from satisfied with the adequacy of the words,
"have regard to the desirability of".
However, I shall not go over that argument again. We are concerned that the duty of conservation, long-term positive conservation, is not adequate for the purposes of archaeology. It has been suggested by the Government Front Bench that the code of practice is adequate for this purpose. Unfortunately, the code of practice is still subject, as is Clause 8, to the overriding requirement under Clause 7 that the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services shall secure the finances of the water and sewerage undertakings. If they are faced with a conflict between, for example, laying a pipeline which is the most effective pipeline to lay and carrying out a large archaeological rescue operation, the obligation under Clause 7 will be an absolute obligation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not present because, in the context, the absolute requirement is on the other side.
They will be absolutely required not to conserve because the word "conserve" does not appear anywhere in the Bill. The current dispute in relation to the Rose Theatre on the South Bank, where a short stay of execution has been obtained for the archaeologists to investigate the remarkably preserved ground plan, floors and part of the walls of the theatre, is a good case in point. If the developers who owned the land of the Rose Theatre were a water company plc under the terms of the Bill, and if the Bill went through unamended, I suspect that the water company would find plenty of justification in Clause 7 to be even more ruthless than any other developer and would not give adequate attention to the need for the conservation of valuable archaeological and cultural remains. This additional duty to conserve our heritage is the theme of Amendment No. 99. It is an important theme which ought not to be ignored.
Amendment No. 100 is perhaps less controversial. It spells out what is meant in line 10 of page 8. Clause 8(1)(b) requires all concerned:
"to have regard to the desirability of protecting buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
We welcome those words, as far as they go, but with Amendment No. 100 we seek to add the words,
"including ancient monuments, industrial remains, portable antiquities and documents".
There is no extension of principle here. The extension is of the explicit reference to those elements of our heritage which are often forgotten but ought to be taken into consideration.
Amendment No. 102 uses a valuable phrase which arises—perhaps I should have referred to it before—in the Land Drainage Improvement Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. The amendment inserts the words,
"the need to avoid, remedy or reduce any adverse [effect]".
This obligation, which is by no means an absolute obligation—it refers to the need to "reduce" any adverse effect—is a valuable improvement on the Government's wording. It is not enough to say that this should be reflected in the draft code unless and until the draft code has more powerful status than it has so far. The amendment would be a valuable addition to Clause 8.
Amendment No. 108 seeks to add to subsection (2) of Clause 8 after the words "other places of natural beauty",
"and to buildings and other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
Those words occur in subsection (1)(b) but would be appropriate in subsection (2)(a):
"to have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access",
to these buildings and other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest. Again, it is not an absolute obligation. Nobody denies that there can sometimes be a conflict between access and conservation. But having regard to the desirability of access, it seems to us to be a modest and reasonable extension of the protection of our heritage and the protection of the ability of our people to take advantage of it.
Amendment No. 120 seeks to add a new subparagraph to subsection (4). It seeks to add to the duties of the authority the duty of promoting,
"the conservation of buildings and other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest, including in situ organic archaeological deposits and artefacts dependent for their survival on a high water table".
This may appear to be a technical point but it is particularly relevant to water authorities. Many ancient objects, especially of wood, have been preserved because they exist in swamps in waterlogged conditions. Water companies frequently dry out swamps. This desiccates any archaeological remains which may exist in the swamp with the result that they decay rapidly. The Committee may recall the extreme steps that had to be taken to protect the Tudor ship the "Mary Rose" when it was rescued off the south coast. It had been preserved by being in water but would have disintegrated rapidly if it had not been protected. It will be clear that the same can apply to waters or waterlogged land in the ownership of water companies and that they ought to be required—indeed, our amendment would require them—to take steps to protect the archaeological objects found in those circumstances which would otherwise be ruined. It is also true that rivers—because people throw things in them, and have done so throughout the ages, and because objects were lost there when rivers were a major means of transport—yield large numbers of objects of archaeological interest which will now be the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. It therefore seems proper that the authority should have a further obligation imposed upon it, in addition to the existing obligations contained in subsection (4), to conserve those other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest.
I hope that the amendments will not be thought of as controversial. They seek to extend and clarify the relevant duties rather than significantly to extend them. I also hope that they will commend themselves to Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: When considering such a wide sphere as archaeology, it is right that we should take special account of it as regards the amount of damage which can be done to an archaeological site through, for example, the lowering of a water table or excavation work. I should like to endorse, without exception, everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. Moreover, I should like to reinforce what he said by making this point. In a nation such as ours where so much of our history is of the non-written type—that is, we have cultures which dominated our history: for example, the ancient Celts and the early Saxons who did not have a written culture—it is basically taught to us through archaeological finds. Thus I think it is most appropriate that we should take every step we can to ensure that most of these archaeological finds are kept in as good a condition as possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The points made by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Addington,
444
are absolutely valid. Indeed, it is true that sometimes an entire wooden dug-out canoe in an amazing state of preservation can be found in a swamp. Of course it would be most important to ensure that such a find was preserved. However, I take issue with the noble Lord as to whether such hard and fast wording is right in this context.
Amendment No. 99 would require the authority, or whatever body is running the land, to,
"protect and conserve objects of… historic interest".
Amendment No. 100 adds to that provision items of industrial heritage. On moorland a footpath may be suffering from slip because the land above it has become very wet and requires draining. The drainers would attack the matter, begin to dig the drain and might easily discover very old and interesting drainage systems which had been put there previously. They could be either very early stone-rubble drains running straight up and down the hill or perhaps 100 year-old horseshoe-shaped clay drains. In order to drain the area they would need to intercept those drains and put in another clay drain, or some other kind of drain, at an angle to the existing drains in order to disperse the water.
In my view, if it is said that such a drainage system is of extreme interest and must therefore be conserved, it will not be possible to do anything about it; one would have to move the footpath away in another direction, leaving the drainage system under the ground. The right thing to do in such a situation would be to record the drainage system and perhaps dig up one or two of the horseshoe drains and put them on show for the people's interest. Indeed, that is frequently done. This wording is unsuitable for such a situation, although it is absolutely suitable for the dug-out canoe or the piece of pottery which has been thrown in the river. However, such hard and fast wording is not suitable for legislation as regards this particular area of activity.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am happy to support my noble friend Lord McIntosh in these amendments. I should stress, however, that I am mainly interested in Amendments Nos. 108 and 120. I say that lest I inadvertently give the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, the opportunity to score another bull's eye. That is something which I am most anxious to avoid.
Looking at Amendment No. 108, it will be seen that it refers to,
"buildings and other subjects of achaeological, architectural or historic interest".
The water industry has a great many structures which are of historic and, indeed, of other kinds of interest. However, they are not buildings, they are not really objects and they are not architectural, although they should be preserved in so far as that is possible. I refer to aqueducts, locks, sluices, lock gates and tunnels. The whole industrial infrastructure of the water industry is really missed out in this important amendment. I know that Amendment No. 100 refers to "industrial remains", but I am not talking about remains; I am talking about structures which are actually there and which might conceivably become remains sometime in the future. I know that one

445
could argue that they are objects, but I do not think that it is sufficient to refer to the structures which I have in mind as objects. Indeed, they are far more important than that.
I think it may well be in the recollection of Members of the Committee that we came across this same problem about buildings a year or so ago when debating what eventually became the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In the course of our debates, when the problem was drawn to the attention of the Minister, he redefined the word "buildings" to include "fixed structures". In fact, a fixed structure is what most of these things are. I am happy to support my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 108—I am sure that the Government will accept it—on the understanding that when we come to the Report stage we will amend it to refer not only to buildings but also to fixed structures, and that it will refer to engineering as well as to architectural and historic interest.
Baroness Nicol: I rise primarily to assure my noble friend that he is not quite alone as regards those Members of the Committee who sit immediately behind him on these Benches. I should also like to say that I expect the Minister to make the point that we must rely on the code of practice in this matter. As regards that code of practice, I shall make just two points. First, it represents a weakening of the criteria laid down in the land drainage proposals which were given, I think, about 14 months ago. Secondly, if Members of the Committee will turn to page 9 of the Bill and look at Clause 10(2), they will see that it says:
"A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being approved under this section shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by section 8 or 9 above".
That provision would seem to weaken the code of practice completely. I hope therefore that when the Minister comes to reply he will draw those two points together and explain to the Committee exactly what is the value of the code of practice upon which we are being asked to rely.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I think that the objectives which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has in mind are highly desirable. His amendments would strengthen the possibility that such objectives could be achieved. Therefore I should like to express my support for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): I hope that I can be brief on this group of amendments which seek to strengthen and amend in various ways the obligations of relevant bodies to have regard to the desirability or protecting historic features. A number of the comments made in response to the earlier groups of amendments are relevant here and I shall not repeat them.
As regards the specific terms of Amendment No. 99, in so far as it seeks to have as a substitute a mandatory obligation to protect historic features, we believe that it goes too far and we cannot therefore accept it. I shall return to the amendment in a moment.
446
We submit that it would be unreasonable to press those obligations further than is provided for in legislation at present. Perhaps I may indulge myself to the extent of using the example of a house and its prohibitions and restrictions under a restrictive covenant given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I live in a house which, if I applied for planning permission today, would be described as obtrusive, inappropriate and out of keeping with the surrounding environment. If I were lucky enough to be one of the 30 per cent. who got through the appeal procedure described by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I would then be in the position, if I wished by chance to change the colour of my wife's dressing room, of having to paint it under the cover of darkness, because what would have been inappropriate is now a Grade I listed building.
My experience is that the restrictions and protections imposed in this country are heavily enforced. Protection of historic features is an important objective to which we require the water industry always to have regard; but we cannot bind the industry always to secure it. It must always be a consideration but, given other duties and requirements, it cannot always be an obligation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked what the position was with regard to the code, of which she does not have a high opinion. I should take a moment or two to lay out to the letter what the code does. In addition to considering whether there has been, or is likely to be, a contravention of any of the requirements of Clauses 8 or 9, the Secretary of State is required by Clause 10 to take into account any contraventions of the code of practice with respect to the undertaker.
The enforcement order under Clause 20 requires the undertaker to take specified action, or to refrain from action, to remedy the breach. If the provisions of the enforcement order are contravened, there is a provision in Clause 23 for the Secretary of State to apply to the High Court for a special administration order which may lead to the loss of the undertaker's appointment.
I said that I would return to Amendment No. 99. We are prepared to consider incorporating the word "conserve" into the Bill. We recognise the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We shall look further at what help we can give in placing more items into the code.
Having said that, perhaps I may turn to the other amendments in the group. I recognise here concepts and terms which may provide a more positive and helpful expression of both historic buildings and landscape duties. In the light of what Members of the Committee have said, I accept that there may be scope for a better formulation, without making the obligations unrealistically tight as in the terms of Amendment No. 99. I cannot commit us to particular terms today, and I do not want to mislead the Committee into believing that we can accept the full impact of the amendments. If the Members of the Committee are content, I should like to take away Amendments Nos. 100, 102, 108 and 120 to see whether we can import into the clause some of the more helpful features of those amendments, and thus go some way at least in the direction in which

447
the amendments press us. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord may be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: In relation to Amendment No. 99, did the Minister say that he would look at the possibility of including the word "conserve" in the code or in the Bill itself?
Lord Hesketh: In the Bill.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the Minister.
Lord Howie of Troon: When the Minister takes away Amendment No. 108, will he also take away my comments on it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Should the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, ever by challenged about the obtrusive nature of his house, he needs only to show the picture of his house with his charming family in front of it published in The Times some 10 days ago. I am sure that that will provide an adequate defence against any challenge.
I must express my gratitude to the Minister for his observations. Clearly, we should prefer to have a stronger obligation than merely "having regard to the desirability", but the inclusion of the word "conserve" as well as "protect" in the Bill will give considerable comfort to those who are concerned with our archaeological and architectural heritage. I am sure that they would wish that I should take up the Minister's offer to consider further amendments. If there is any way in which I could take part in the formulation of those amendments in discussion with him, I should be glad to do so. In the meantime, with my thanks to the Minister and to the Government, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 99.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 8, line at end insert—

("(d) to have regard to the desirability of preventing the afforestation by conifer trees in areas that form part of the catchment areas of inland waters.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to protect the visual interest and amenity of the scenic landscape in some parts of the country; to ensure that public walking is freely available and to maintain an ecological balance within the countryside, especially in river basins. Many people agree that planting dense, single species conifer forests is extremely unsightly. There is no variety of colour and no visual interest is produced. A one-species forest is also environmentally unsound as it provides little food for some types of the wildlife that may inhabit it.
However, the impact on the ecology in those areas is more significant as conifer trees shed needles which produce acidic humus. That changes the soil
448
type, and water running off such land tends to become more acid in quality. As a consequence, rivers and stretches of water also become more acidic. The result often inhibits fish growth. For example, fish died in Durham Dales in 1986 as a result of run-off. On that occasion, new drains had been dug in coniferous woodland. That increased the rate of run-off and produced an intensive burst of acidic water entering rivers. However, because plantations tend to be a single species type of conifer, they also produce a more dense canopy which shades out all the undergrowth, thus reducing the range of flora and fauna. Once again, that will reduce the amount of food available in the forest, affecting all the wildlife around.
Access to new plantations would also be increased as one cannot walk through densely planted new conifers. Plantations reach semi-maturity before one can walk through them. That takes about 30 years. Two thinnings are needed before one can enter the woods. In another place Mr. Moynihan referred to the fact that he was aware of the problem. He agreed with the Opposition that it might be useful if reference were made to the issue in the code of practice. It was a highly complicated issue and many conflicting positions had been taken on the potential problems of conifer afforestation, not least the acidification of water supplies.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond helpfully to the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has a point, but only one—the acidification of water. I do not go along with any of his other arguments. With coniferous forests planted in the wrong place, acidification is a matter for consideration. Acid rain and dead streams, especially in Wales, are a considerable worry.
As often happens among scientists, there is a great argument as to the exact reason for all. If people go to Wales and talk to the Welsh Water Authority they will be told quite clearly that it has nothing to do with electricity coolers, motor cars or industry because the Welsh winds sweep in from the Atlantic. Therefore, that cannot be the reason. The Welsh attribute the acidification of their streams, or at least they did so two years ago, almost entirely to the unwise planting of coniferous forests.
The matter should be looked at and perhaps covered in this clause of the Bill in some way or another, but certainly not as proposed in the amendment which refers to the catchment areas of inland waters and the desirability of having some influence over them. So far as I am concerned, the catchment areas of inland waters are the whole of England and Wales; that is what we are dealing with in the Bill. It would be quite wrong that those examining the problem and having responsibility for water should have control and influence over tree planting throughout the two countries. I suggest to my noble friend that the proposals are worth looking at. Somewhere in the clause, as well as the flora and the fauna, there should be some mention of the acidification of waters relative to the planting of coniferous trees—but it should not go too far.
Lord Moran: I wish to give my strong support to the general thrust of the amendment for the same reason as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The problem of acidification is extremely serious. A large area of upland mid-Wales where I live has been affected by acidification: it has had a damaging effect on the fisheries there. A number of lakes and the upper reaches of many rivers are now biologically dead. There are no fish in them, no invertebrates, and consequently birds like dippers have disappeared.
As the Minister will be aware, the Welsh Water Authority has organised a research programme funded by his department and the Welsh Office which have given the authority £600,000 to pay for research by 20 scientists until 1991. The work has been going on near the Llyn Brianne reservoir. It started orginally because a trap was put in below the dam to catch ascending salmon and sewin and take them up above the dam so that they could spawn. The trap worked very well. They were taken up but did not spawn because they were killed by the low ph and the high level of aluminium. That resulted from the fact that one of the rivers feeding the dam, the upper Towy, flowed through land 90 per cent. of which was covered with conifers. Largely as a result of that, the water became too acid to support fish life.
A great deal of research has been going on and it has been established fairly clearly that one reason is that conifer trees "scavenge"—the technical word used by scientists—the pollutants out of the air. The needles bring them down and concentrate them and they run off into the streams, particularly on poor soils which have no buffering effect, as is the case in many parts of mid-Wales.
Welsh Water is satisfied that surveys throughout mid and north Wales have established that there is a relationship between forestry and streamwater aluminium which is toxic to fish. It is therefore restricting further planting of trees in the sensitive upland area.
It is very important that this problem should be addressed. I wish to ask the Minister what steps the NRA will take to deal with the problem which seems to me of the first importance for river quality in the upland areas. The problem exists in many countries: it has been a problem in Canada; it is a continuing problem in Norway and Sweden; and it is now a serious problem in Wales as well as parts of south-west Scotland and other areas.
I very much hope that even if the Government do not accept the amendment they will be prepared to bring some wording into the Bill which will establish the matter as a very high priority for the National Rivers Authority.
Lord Renten: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has said. I am glad that he mentioned south-west Scotland, an area where we have a family property. The main public water supply there becomes rather precarious about every four years. This is partly due to the fact that although it is an area with normally fairly good rainfall, every four years there is a drought. The situation is made much worse by the fact that there are vast areas of conifer
450
plantations; these are very thirsty trees indeed. I know of a hillside with three wells which never failed until conifers were planted. When the trees became pretty fully grown they were so thirsty that water had to be carted a considerable distance by tanker in order to replenish the wells.
So it is not only the acidity that is caused by conifers; it is the fact that they cause a lack of availability of water, both public and private supplies, where the water is needed. For that reason I support the amendment.
I do not go along with my noble friend Lord Radnor in saying that we should ignore the effect on the flora and fauna. That is a factor which should certainly be borne in mind among all the other factors when the Forestry Commission or private owners are deciding whether to plant trees.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I wish to say a word in favour of the much-maligned conifer forest. These trees are extremely attractive evergreens. They look very agreeable in the winter when they illuminate and make more pleasurable the landscape. I do not believe it is true that they are busy killing fish life and wildlife. After all they grow in profusion in many parts of the world and people are fishing like mad for salmon and God knows what else in the lakes and rivers below them. I hope that the Government will not listen to all this obscurantist prejudice against the charming conifer.
Lord Howie of Troon: Conifers are fine trees and native to my part of the world, but I think it is fairly well established that they play a substantial part in the acid rain problem. The amendment merely talks of preventing further afforestation. There will still be a large number of plantations in south Wales, for example, and south-west Scotland where experiments are taking place.
We must ensure that if we prevent further afforestation the water authorities take other steps to prevent the acidification of lakes, reservoirs and streams. There are experiments now in south Wales involving spreading lime. The same is happening at Loch Fleet in Galloway. Not only should the spread of conifer forests be discouraged, but where they exist water authorities must be obliged to take such steps as liming in the lochs and water courses to counter the ill-effects of the conifers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton: I do not like this amendment either. It represents another attack on conifers. Conifers should grow well and produce an economic crop on these sites. In the catchment areas they would produce a crop much faster than hardwoods. It has been suggested that hardwoods and softwoods could be grown together. That idea should be considered. Surely the choice should be left to those on the ground to make their decisions on the basis of the usual consultations. This amendment imposes a duty and ties the hands of the relevant body as regards the kind of crop that can be grown. I do not support the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I think I can be of some partial help to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. His amendment would require that bodies subject to the duties in Clause 8, in considering proposals related to their functions, should have regard for the desirability of preventing conifer afforestation in inland water catchments. I can readily understand the sentiment underlying this amendment. Coniferous afforestation in the wrong places, as my noble friend, Lord Radnor forcefully pointed out, can damage traditional and cherished landscape. It can contribute to soil erosion. And, most important for our present purposes, it can contribute to the acidification, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, of rivers and lakes, potentially harming water supplies and damaging the local ecology.
But the fact that coniferous afforestation can be detrimental to water quality in this way means that it is something to which the NRA and undertakers are bound to have the closest regard. While, therefore what the noble Lord says is, with qualification, valid, given the incentives on the relevant bodies, it hardly needs saying in the Bill.
There are good reasons why it should not be said. The duty in question is already a broad and inclusive one. To single out one particular practice for special reference is inherently undesirable because it can cast doubt on the scope of the provision.
In any case, the terms of the amendment go too far in two particular respects. It is going too far, first of all, to say that prevention of conifer afforestation is desirable everywhere in water catchment areas, as the terms of the amendment could suggest. Secondly, the Forestry Commission has already produced guidelines on how, by appropriate practices, conifer planting and protection of water quality can go together. Good practice can solve problems.
Looking to the wider context, I ask the Committee to recall the changes to government policy last year which made clear that the approval of the Forestry Commission should not normally be given for new planting, which consists predominantly of conifers, in the uplands of England
In these circumstances, and for these reasons therefore, this amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. However, as my honourable friend the Minister of State said in Committee in another place, we accept that this is an issue to which some reference in the code of practice would be useful. What we have heard today strengthens our view that that would be appropriate.
As regards the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, made, I can say that, more generally, acidification of upland streams is a matter which I know the NRA will be concerned about and will address in due course. It is, of course, a much wider problem which the department is studying.
If the amendment should be pressed, I urge the Committee to resist it as too sweeping and restrictive in its terms and yet at the same time too specific for a statement of general duties. However, I hope the proposer will feel, in the light of what I have said, that that is not necessary.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Arran would make it clear that in the code of practice there would be a reference not only to the danger of acidification, but also to the threat—this does not apply everywhere, but only in certain circumstances—to the availability of water if large conifer plantations are established.
The Earl of Arran: I am sure that what my noble friend Lord Renton says will be taken into account when it is decided how to phrase this particular reference in the code of practice.
Lord Addington: This has been an interesting and beneficial debate. I hope the Committee agrees with me on that. The Minister has met me some of the way and has given what I think I can describe as a broad undertaking to make sure the problem will not get out of hand and that it will be dealt with. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is more than just the acidification of water in question here. The environment around water areas should also be considered. I hope that that will be dealt with in the code of practice. However, with the assurances I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(1A) Any proposals by, or in relation to, a body or person to which subsection (1) above refers shall where they relate—

(a) to a proposed disposal of land; or

(b) to a proposed change in the use of the land

be made subject to the requirement that the person concerned shall undertake consultation with each local authority in the area in which the land is situated and shall have regard to the results of such consultation in relation to recreational or environmental matters.").
The noble Lord said: Those who follow these matters closely will notice that Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 103C all seek to get something written into the Bill about consultation in respect of certain matters. Amendment No. 103A seeks to ensure that—
The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble Lord clarify for the Committee whether he is speaking to all three amendments together?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I apologise. I understand they will be taken separately. When I consulted my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, my first reaction was that the three amendments were interrelated although they deal with separate points. I hope that the sweet reasonableness which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, apparently felt was successful the other night may also be successful as regards one, two or even three of the amendments. But I shall deal with them separately and be grateful for small mercies.
Amendment No. 103A refers to proposals by a body or person having regard to,
"consultation with each local authority in the area in which the land is situated and shall have regard to the results of such consultation in relation to recreational or environmental matters".

453
As the Chamber knows, I am a strong local authority man. I enjoyed my service in local authorities very much. I invite the Chamber to consider the safety net that such consultation would provide. Local authorities often have joint arrangements with water authorities. If a change of ownership is envisaged by means of this legislation, and if subsequently there is a further change by means of the establishment of the plcs, and if other forms of management and ownership flow from that, it is essential that local authorities should be consulted. After all, the interests of the people within the areas of local authorities will be affected by such changes. Not only should local authorities be consulted, but also the gravamen of the consultation should be taken into account.
We on this side are trying to second guess what might be said in response to our proposals. No doubt we shall be told that there are adequate safeguards in planning procedures to make sure that the views of those who are held to be directly affected will be considered. But a number of Members of the Committee have drawn attention to the fate of planning applications in, for instance, the national parks. The situation there is very bleak. If one considers Exmoor, for instance, one can see that the percentage of appeals as regards planning applications is very high indeed. In 1985 it was 57 per cent., in 1986 it was 66 per cent.; and in 1987 it was 50 per cent.
In the Lake District National Park, the percentage of appeals on planning applications was 35 per cent. in 1985; 48 per cent. in 1986; 43 per cent. in 1987; and 44 per cent. in 1988. Like the Minister, we are firm advocates of the planning procedure nexus. If someone wants to make a change and that change is considered and then rejected by a local authority or a planning authority, it is perfectly proper that another court of appeal is established. We are not drawing any inference from the fact that an undue proportion of appeals against local authority planning decisions succeed. However, the Minister will understand the sensitivity of those who are concerned that they should not have to rely on the planning appeal nexus and that they should be consulted.
Like the Minister, I believe that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall be in a new ball game. Everyone concerned in local authorities will have to come to terms with the new facts of life. One can do that in two ways. One can do it the hard way or one can do it the sensible way; namely the Bill should lay down that if a change of use or change of ownership is of substance, the people affected should be consulted. In my view the amendment is eminently reasonable. I also believe that it will go a very long way to satisfy people outside this House that the Minister is especially concerned to ensure that local authorities are consulted, because they spend ratepayers' money and provide recreation and environmental facilities. Local authorities are not solely councils of 15 or 20 people; they represent the people who live in the area. We hope that the Minister will say something helpful about the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendment seeks to impose a restriction on the ability of successor bodies to dispose of land; not, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, substantial land, but land. It would require that no disposal or change of use of land should take place without consultation with the relevant local authority on recreational or environmental matters.
The first point I should like to make is that it is appropriate to regulate changes of use; they are already regulated by local planning authorities—the very bodies the noble Lord, wants to be involved. What is proposed here would cut across or extend unreasonably those general arrangements. The second objection is that I believe that the requirement to consult in respect of disposals goes unreasonably wide. We are not here restricting it to exceptional amenity or environmental features which might be jeopardised by disposals but are placing the requirement on all disposals. That surely is onerous and unreasonable and would extend unduly the remit of the local authority. Of course local authorities, particularly in their planning function, have an important role in recreation and environment. But we do not believe that that can justify the intrusion of consultation obligations as wide and onerous as these.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that a form of words which is not as all-embracing as those in the amendment would meet with his sympathy, if not his approval? He pointed out that the amendment does not specify the land to which it refers. In essence it is all land which is currently in the ownership of or leased to the water authority. Before such land is disposed of or undergoes a change of use consultation should take place.
The Minister talked about onerous conditions. Who bears those onerous conditions? It will be the new owners. If the Minister says that somehow the amendment would prevent them from doing what they would otherwise do without consultation, he needs to spell out to the Committee and to those outside what the new owners would want to do that would change the use to the detriment of the enjoyment of the land by the current users. What would be onerous? The new plc may decide to rationalise its asset portfolio. It may decide to dispose of land which is surplus to its functional requirements and which is currently used environmentally or recreationally. The new owner may wish to jazz up the recreational use or to chance his arm and ask for planning permission for industrial use, warehousing, shopping facilities or for some other change of use. The Minister says that it would be onerous to lay down conditions requiring them to consult before changing the use of the land. I am surprised.
The Minister might say that planning procedures lay down means by which consultation takes place. However, more than one local authority may be affected by a change in the use of a particular piece of land. For example, I live in the middle of Lee Valley regional park, and am proud to have been a founder member of the Lee Valley authority in

455
1964–65. The Lee Valley covers a number of local authorities. In such areas a change of use on which only the local authority in whose area the land is located—the riparian owner—is consulted might be seen by other authorities as a matter on which they should also be consulted.
I should like the Minister to say a little more about what he is afraid of when he talks about laying a burden on new owners before they change radically, or change at all—I must be careful about my qualifications because there could be arguments—the existing use. I do not say that the use should never ever be changed; changes must be envisaged. But it is clear that the Government are opening up a host of possibilities for change of use in the future. If that is to be possible, why not consult the representatives of the people who will be affected by the changes? I do not mean just the shareholders, the employees or the managers: I mean the people who live in the area.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him a question about the example which he gave of the area within his own former constituency which extends over a number of district council boundaries. If there were to be a change of use the planning departments of each of those authorities would be involved and there would automatically be liaison with each local authority. Does he agree that they would all be involved in any change of use policy? He appeared to rule that out.
If the noble Lord replies to that question perhaps I may also ask him whether the particular area to which he referred is subject to local enactments anyway.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I would happily settle for confirmation from the Minister that the planning legislation lays down that all local authorities affected by that change will be consulted about any change of ownership or use of land in an area such as the regional park or in the land which is currently under the sovereignty of the water authorities. That is the case for the amendment. If that is the case, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whose views I respect, tells me that there is no need for the amendment in those terms, I shall happily withdraw my amendment. But it ain't necessarily so.
The Earl of Caithness: In his first reply to my remarks the noble Lord concentrated very firmly on sub-paragraph (b) of his amendment, which relates to a proposed change of use of the land. It was quite right for him to do so. However, as he knows, and as Members of the Committee know, if there is to be a change of use of the land, local authorities have to be consulted. That is the planning law.
The second time that the noble Lord responded to me, he returned to paragraph (a) of his amendment, which refers to any disposal of land. That is where I take issue with him. It is unnecessary to have the onerous duty of consulting the local authority about the disposal of land in whatever shape, form or location. In my view, to have to discuss matters concerning land currently owned by a water
456
authority with a local authority would be an unnecessarily onerous imposition upon the ownership of land. The proposed change of use—the point of concern to the noble Lord—must be subject to a planning application.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that if, under the planning procedure, there is a change of use, all affected local authorities will automatically be consulted? Does the Minister nod his head at that proposal?
The Earl of Caithness: If more than one authority is involved, it depends whether they are in agreement between themselves.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the Minister confirm that all local authorities, whether there are five or only one, affected by a change of use will be consulted under the planning procedures?
The Earl of Caithness: Again, that depends upon the agreement between the local authorities. It also depends on what the noble Lord means by "affected" by a proposed change of use. A proposed change of use will be submitted to the local authority. If the local authority wishes to consult adjacent local authorities because there is common ownership or a boundary is involved, I am sure that the agreement will already be there, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is interesting. At local level I have come across scores of cases involving a change of use. At one stage I was privileged to be chairman of the planning committee of the London Borough of Enfield. It was our policy—I am sure that it was the general policy—to take the view that the people affected by a change of use should be consulted; for example, with regard to the demolition of a large house and the construction of eight flats or the change from residential to business use. In the main, that meant the people on either side of the house or perhaps on the other side of the road.
However, the Minister will not be surprised by the number of people who were not consulted about the decision and felt that they should have been consulted. It is not an easy science to decide who is affected by a change of use. The Minister said that a local authority—prima facie, the local authority directly affected by a change of use—may decide to consult its neighbouring authorities. I know that from my experience of local matters; for example, in respect of planning applications for large shopping developments on the A.10, adjacent to the M.25, in the Broxbourne area of Hertfordshire. As a courtesy, the authority consulted other London boroughs such as Enfield and Barnet. When a change of use is involved, every affected local authority should be consulted.
The second point that the Minister quite fairly made related to the change of ownership. According to the Minister, it has nothing to do with the local people if someone acquires land and then decides to sell it to other people. As I understand the Minister, the local people should not be consulted and should

457
wait and be surprised by the new owners. The Minister may take the view that he is not concerned when a change of ownership takes place. There is no proscription in respect of that matter. We do not ask that there should be proscription, but we believe that there will be terrible consequences when the Bill is enacted. I am not referring to the purpose for which the land will be used, but to its ownership. From his experience, which I greatly admire, the Minister will be as aware as I am that there are many cases in which land changes hands That land appears to be intended for one purpose, but planning applications may emerge five or six years later, although they had been intended from the first.
We envisage that people will acquire land, whether it be allotment land, green belt or recreational land. In five years' time, a planning application will be submitted by the owners, although their names may not be the names on the door. Local people are entitled to know who are the owners of that land. At present, the owners of all land in water authority areas are the water authorities. When there is a change to a plc, there will be a change of ownership. We protest against that change on principle. When the new owners emerge, we know that they will be a very disparate crew. They may well be desperate, but they will certainly be disparate. Ownership will be scattered. Is it not reasonable for local people who enjoy the facility to be consulted through the local authorities? That is all I ask. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about my point.
The Earl of Caithness: I take the noble Lord's argument and I shall take it to its logical conclusion. But the intermediate step is: how does one consult the local people when one goes only as far as the local authority? I want to take the noble Lord's argument all the way. He is concerned about any land that the water authorities at present own. Surely, if he is to be consistent, he should argue that any disposal of land, including his house, should be notified to the local authority, to all the other owners and to the person in Cumbria who might happen to like his home in Lee Valley Park and think that the noble Lord is a suitable owner, but would dread the thought of me buying it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That response can be arranged. The noble Lord suggests that the disposal of a person's house falls into the same category as the disposal of part of the heritage of this country which involves open space, land and recreational use. With great respect, there is no comparison. Land which is at present owned by the people will now be sold to shareholders in a plc whose prime motive will be to make money out of it and who may then decide to sell that land to other people who believe that they can make even more money out of it. If the Minister tells me that there are people who will buy that land in order to keep it and restore it to its orginal use, he knows more about the matter than I do.
We believe that the people in a community are entitled to be consulted. The Minister makes a fair point. Not all local authorities will be equally zealous in doing that. He is aware that local newspapers may
458
sensationalise matters, but people find out about matters through the local press. We are talking here about large sums of money. The Thames Water Authority has an estimated £1,000 million-worth of assets. We are talking about billions and billions of pounds. The Minister has failed to satisfy me and the Committee. He has marginalised the importance of a change of use and ownership in respect of those important land areas, but I do not think that he will say much more of help to us. I shall consult others and see whether we can come back with a more narrow amendment based upon the Minister's comments tonight. He is not out of sympathy with me, especially with regard to the change of use, but he is adamant that, once the land is owned by other people, it is none of our business to know to whom they will sell it. The people of this country are entitled to know to whom the land may be sold. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 103B:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of the Authority and every relevant body, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to the functions of any relevant body or, as the case may be, that body—

(a) to ensure that no such proposals shall affect any scheme, established in consultation or jointly with one or more local authorities, for the purpose of furthering the environmental or recreational amenity of the land concerned;

(b) where sub-paragraph (a) above applies, to attach such restrictive covenants and other safeguards to the use of the land as may further the purposes of that sub-paragraph in relation to that land; and

(c) to ensure that no such proposals shall affect, or make less likely the achievement of, any proposal for a scheme made by a local authority where, were that scheme already in existence, it would be a scheme to which sub-paragraph (a) above applies.").

The noble Lord said: There are currently in existence many agreed recreational and environmental management plans. The ownership of the land about which there are agreed recreational and environmental management plans is not in dispute at the moment. There is a happy relationship with a local authority which often provides expertise, facilities and subsidy from the ratepayers to encourage its residents to use the facilities. I think particularly of management schemes for access to land and for the protection, maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitats and of the operation of river regulatory schemes so as to benefit wildlife, fishing and other recreational pursuits. Many of these arrangements are of a purely voluntary nature.
In the previous debate the Minister said that it is none of our business if the ownership of the land changes hands. I tried to make the case that it was. Suppose that there is a management agreement between a local authority and the new owner, the plc. Then they decide to change the ownership of the land. We say that we ought to have something written into the Bill, or an understanding, that before

459
any existing management arrangement is disturbed there is consultation with the other partner. If a joint agreement is only to be exercised by the new owners of the land and not by the current users and supporters of the land, it is very one-sided indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This amendment overlaps with subsection (1), which it follows. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, it does so in a rather confusing way. For example, he says that the authority must ensure, and so must every relevant body,
"that no such proposals shall affect … a scheme".
What he means is "adversely affect any scheme", but that is not what it says.
Any such proposals may affect any scheme, but that is not what the noble Lord is after. His amendment does not express his intention. We get exactly the same point in paragraph (c) of his amendment, where we again have the words:
"to ensure that no such proposals shall affect, or make less likely the achievement of, any proposals for a scheme made by a local authority where",
the scheme is already in existence. Again the noble Lord needs the word "adversely" in.
Apart from that, if we look at paragraph (b) we find a reference to the tempting proposition that there should be restrictive covenants. We had a most interesting reference—I forget which of your Lordships made it—to restrictive covenants several amendments ago, but they can turn out to be a bit of an illusion because of the law and practice which have grown up in relation to them.
The courts are very reluctant to enforce restrictive covenants if they have become irrelevant owing to a change of owner or a change of use. Indeed in the past, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, sitting there knows very well, sometimes restrictive covenants have not been enforced as between the original owner and the original tenant or the original vendor and the original purchaser. Therefore if we were to build too much hope on bringing in the concept of restrictive covenants in these circumstances, it might turn out to be a disappointment.
Apart from those detailed points I hope that my noble friends will not accept this amendment, because frankly it adds confusion to a clause which is already perfectly clear thanks to the terms of subsection (1).
The Earl of Cranbrook: I think we need to know whether there are precise examples of such agreements. I have sought information from Anglian Water. So far as I am aware there are no such agreements with the local authority in existence in Anglian Water (which is the largest water authority in the country) to provide recreational or amenity facilities.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that no proposals of a relevant body shall jeopardise any scheme established jointly with a
460
local authority, or in consultation with it, for recreation or amenity; that it may if necessary achieve this by the imposition of restrictive covenants; and that no such proposals shall adversely affect any scheme currently being developed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his proposal, which I accept directs the Committee's attention to a matter of relevance which we should consider. The number of joint schemes between local authorities and water authorities is not, we believe, very large—I believe I am right in saying to my noble friend that there are some with Birmingham—but it is significant, and they deserve our attention.
We do not, however, believe that the right solution is to incorporate proposals on the lines of this amendment into the Bill for two particular reasons. First, the obligation to have proper regard for these schemes is implicit in due observance of the existing Clause 8 duties in the Bill in that the schemes would have been established in pursuance of the predecessors of these duties; secondly, the amendment is cast in particularly rigid terms. It would appear, for instance, to prevent a relevant body from seeking to amend or resile from a scheme even where it might be reasonable for it to do so. Nor is it entirely irrelevant that no such reciprocal obligations are to attach to the local authority even though they are joint schemes.
Having said that, I accept that this is not an issue that we should let pass. We believe that the best course would be to seek to cover the issue within the code of practice, taking full account subject to the particular doubts I have expressed, of the terms of this amendment. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be content to let us give effect to the reasonable objectives of the amendment by those means.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for the concluding words of the Minister. I have a number of illustrations here of existing arrangements, none of which relates to Anglia. The Committee in effect wants me to show the colour of my money, or to put my money where my mouth is, in respect of the fact that there are arrangements that could be disturbed. Let me give the Committee the first one.
Many of the river valleys in Greater Manchester, together with the associated reservoirs and water authority lands, are managed jointly by local authorities and the North West Water Authority. Together, as in the Douglas Valley, schemes of access have been agreed with jointly-funded wardens and information services. A massive new recreation resource, which includes the fascinating gardens of Rivington Hall—and we are going to hear more about Rivington later—a water authority property, has thereby been created. That is an agreement of the kind that we are trying to protect.
Secondly, the water levels of certain reservoirs—for instance, Selset in Durham—are maintained at a specific height for as long a period as possible to allow water sport to take place. In this case sailing is possible for much of the summer season but at some cost to Northumbrian Water which now pumps water from other sources. Thirdly, certain reservoirs or certain sections of reservoirs

461
—for example, Gouthwaite reservoir in North Yorkshire and Bakethin dam in Northumberland, neither of which is a national park—are managed as nature reserves. Agreements have been entered into for the management of those sites and no physical development or intensive local uses are permitted.
We believe that those arrangements are in danger. The Minister—and I accept completely what he says—says that he has sympathy with what we are trying to protect and that it may be possible that the code of practice will contain wording, or arrangements, in such a way that this will be satisfied. Like everything else, I of course accept what the Minister says without question in so far as the words are concerned, but we need to see the words on the paper. We need to see the code of practice in order to be satisfied. At this stage I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. In the light of what he has told the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
7.10 p.m.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Legal Aid (Functions) (No. 2) Order 1989
7.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper asks the approval of the House for the making of an order under the Legal Aid Act 1988. On 20th March this year your Lordships approved an order under the act conferring certain functions on the new Legal Aid Board. That order formed part of a package of instruments implementing the Act and effecting the transfer of the adminsitration of legal aid from the Law Society to the board.
Unfortunately, there was omitted from the order provision intended to confer on the board the function of determining the costs of representation in care proceedings in the magistates' courts and the Crown Court. The purpose of the draft order now before your Lordships is to repair that omission.
I should perhaps explain that the regulations that your Lordships approved have that effect but it is
462
right that the Legal Aid Board should have the necessary functions. That is the reason for the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Lord Chancellor)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, there is clearly need for provision for costs of representation for the purposes of care proceedings in magistates' courts and in the Crown Court to be made. For that reason we on this side of the House support this repairing of an omission which clearly was an oversight. That can happen in the best of administrations, and in not so good administrations. I am not for a moment indicating any political view on that matter.
The costs that are referred to are to be determined by the Legal Aid Board. The importance of such a provision we discussed when we were considering the Civil Legal Aid (Matrimonial Proceedings) Regulations 1989 when they came before the House in March. During the progress of the Children Bill through the House, the importance of protecting the interest of the child in wardship custody and care proceedings was stressed on several occasions and produced sympathetic reaction from the Government. This order relates only to care proceedings in juvenile courts and the Crown Court. Is there any provision in relation to wardship cases which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor contemplates?
Lastly, I cannot let this occasion pass without once more returning to my favourite theme of the family court. We regard that as the best means of economy and efficiency. I should be very grateful on behalf of the many noble Lords who are interested in this matter if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give some indication of what progress has been made towards the setting up of a family court.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has said, this provision deals with the determination in relation to legal aid costs of the juvenile court and the Crown Court. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord referred to as a family court, he knows probably better than I that what is covered by that phrase depends a great deal upon who is using it. Different people have different ideas about it. However, in the Children Bill we have taken a very significant step in improving the arrangements for dealing with children's cases. The Bill contains provisions under which applications for care orders can be taken at the magistrates' court level, the county court level, or the High Court level.
I intimated in the course of the Children Bill how Her Honour Judge Joyanne Bracewell is assisting the president in making the necessary arrangements to facilitate this procedure. I believe that if these arrangements are successful, the result will be a significant improvement in the way children's cases are dealt with by the court, and a model—if successful—for continuing such arrangements in other types of proceedings. I also indicated during discussions on the Children Bill that we intended to embark upon an examination on how to further this

463
approach. I hope that in the not too distant future the noble and learned Lord will see gradually emerging a structure based on the three distinct levels but nevertheless unified in relation to the subject matter which will satisfy him as the best possible way of disposing of family proceedings.
Wardship costs are determined in the ordinary way as are civil costs. Therefore no special provision is required. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Beef Special Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1989
7.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move. That the order laid before the House on 31st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order referred to in the Motion before the House gives effect to the provisions of European Community law on the repayment to beef producers of Community special premium. Before discussing the order itself, I should perhaps remind the House of the provisions of the Community scheme.
A premium of 40 ecus—currently £29·19—per head is payable on male cattle up to a limit of 90 head per producer in any calendar year. Premium payments may be made only once in the lifetime of any one animal. In order to minimise the risk of double payment, animals on which premium is claimed must be permanently marked.
Member states have the option to pay the premium either on farm or else at slaughter and on sale through live auction markets for slaughter. In the last case, animals on which premium has been claimed must be slaughtered within 21 days of sale.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 6th March, we considered that, at least in the first instance, we should operate the premium scheme at slaughter and at live markets in Great Britain. The order therefore gives effect to those provisions of Community law relevant to that option.
The order is made under Section 5 of the Agriculture Act 1957 which empowers Ministers to make orders requiring the marking of produce; the keeping and production of records relating to the purchase and sale of produce; and to provide for powers of entry for authorised officers to inspect land or premises used for the production or sale of such produce.
The order contains 10 articles—the basic scheme rules. For the sake of brevity, I do not intend detailing the contents of each article. Naturally I am willing to answer any of your Lordships' questions to the best of my ability. However, at this stage I must bring two matters to the attention of the House. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found a minor error in the drafting of Article 2.
464
Paragraph 2 of that article was intended to have the effect of excluding officers of the Meat and Livestock Commission who act as agents for the Intervention Board from the powers of entry conferred on authorised officers of the board by Article 9. By an oversight what should have been a reference to Article 9 in this paragraph appears as a reference to Article 8. As such it is meaningless since Article 8 does not refer to the board at all. We have informed the joint committee that we shall put this matter right at such time as the order needs to be amended for other reasons.
Secondly, Article 6 is intended to implement a requirement of Community law that animals in respect of which premium is claimed at live markets must be slaughtered within 21 days of sale. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has pointed out that the provision as drafted in this order does not fully meet that requirement, because it appears to offer the Intervention Board some discretion in deciding whether there should be a time limit for the slaughter of marked animals and, if so, what that time limit should be. Moreover it makes observance of the limit conditional on notice of it having been displayed in the market at the time of sale. We accept that the Joint Committee is right in this regard and we have undertaken to amend this provision at such time as the order needs to be amended for other reasons.
In the meantime, however, we are satisfied that the provision as drafted will have the effect intended by the Community provision, since every approved liveweight centre will in practice display a notice advertising the requirement that marked animals must be slaughtered within 21 days of sale. Such errors are clearly unfortunate, but they are testimony, if one were needed, to the speed within which we were forced to introduce a workable scheme. I should not wish to give the House the impression that we consider this to be an ideal scheme. It is, as I am sure noble Lords will realise, quite a complicated scheme to administer. The principal reason for the complexity of the scheme is the existence of the headage limit, which requires us to compile a register of claimants and to keep a running record of the number of animals in respect of which each applicant has claimed on all production units run by him. We argued strongly against the headage limit during the negotiations on the beef reform package in the Council of Agricultural Ministers, but the Commission and most other member states insisted on retaining it. That being the case, we had no option but to implement the scheme accordingly and in a very short timescale.
Although the Agriculture Council reached agreement on the reform package at its meeting on 23rd-24th January, the detailed rules for the operation of the scheme were not published until 21st March. But the scheme had to be in place on 3rd April. It was primarily for this reason, though not solely because of it, that we decided to operate the scheme in Great Britain at the slaughter stage. This enabled us to build on the administrative structures in existence to operate the beef variable premium scheme and to make a relatively smooth transition to the new arrangements. Of course there

465
have been teething troubles. The documentation for the scheme was necessarily designed quickly and some aspects have needed to be clarified in the first weeks of the scheme. There was some temporary disturbance of marketing patterns and price levels reflecting the anticipated ending of the variable premium. But that was an understandable reaction by producers to the reduction in the level of payments. The new arrangements have worked reasonably well and have not themselves given rise to significant market disruption. Much of the credit for smooth transition must go to those most closely involved in operating the scheme on the ground, the auctioneers at liveweight markets and the staff of the Meat and Livestock Commission and abattoir owners at deadweight centres. We are very grateful to all concerned for the way in which they have co-operated.
I recognise that most of those directly concerned with the scheme would greatly have preferred us to operate the scheme on-farm. Given the entirely new practical arrangements which that would have entailed, I am confident that had we chosen that course at the start the results would have been chaotic. However, our minds are not closed to the possibility of moving to an on-farm scheme in the future. As my right honourable friend the Minister said on 6th March, we shall, in consultation with other agricultural departments, conduct a review of the practicability and cost-effectiveness of moving to an on-farm scheme in due course. In this review Ministers will take account of a range of issues including the costs and administrative consequences of payment on-farm as against payment at marketing for slaughter; the relative impact on the industry of the two different means of administration; the possible transitional problems of making any change from the present arrangements; and the fact that the Community will be reviewing the slaughter option after two years.
Despite the understandable concern felt by many in the industry about the new scheme, the order which we are currently considering has enabled us to meet our obligations under Community law in due time without causing market disruption. Without prejudice to any decisions about future arrangements which might apply, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the order laid before the House on 31st March be approved [15 th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining this order. As she says, it puts into legislation a Community decision to end the beef variable premium and to replace it with the headage premium. This is not the place or the time to go into the merits or the demerits of the change, but it is worth noting in passing that according to a Written Answer to a Question in another place on 2nd May the Minister of Agriculture was asked to provide the details of the actual amount paid to beef producers in the last available 12 months of the variable premium and to give his estimate of the total amount of the new premium which will be paid to the producers in the first year of the premium's
466
operation. The Answer from the Parliamentary Secretary was:
"Our provisional estimate of the amount of beef variable premium paid to United Kingdom producers, net of drawback on intervention and clawback on exports, in the financial year 1988–89 is £103 million. Our current estimate of the likely expenditure on the beef special premium in 1989–90 is £44 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/5/1989; col. 80.]
That is a reduction in the income of beef producers of £59 million in the first year of operation.
As the Minister said, this order was criticised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 15th report on the defective drafting of Articles 2(2) and 6. Besides the defective drafting, there has been a great deal of criticism of the records and forms which are required under the order. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of this. I have a briefing from the NFU which I do not propose to read in detail, but it seems that there are ambiguities in the records that producers are required to keep. Certain matters which appear in the schedules as required do not appear on the records which are required under the scheme. If these are requirements under the rules of the premium, why do not the forms accommodate all the points in the order?
Secondly, and perhaps the more important point, is this business of the recovery of premium, payments. There is a paragraph in the regulations which sets out the powers of the Intervention Board to recover premiums from producers who have contravened the rules of the premium scheme. But there is a marked ambiguity in the application form which does not make clear whether when the producer fills in the number of animals for which he is applying, that figure is inclusive or exclusive of animals which are on that form. Does the producer have to include the total number he has applied for previously or the numbers he knows have qualified for the premium? Some could have been rejected for the scheme.
That is a crucial point because of the recovery powers under the order in the event of a transgression. We should like to know how the Ministry will deal with producers who entirely innocently contravene the rules of the premium scheme because of the ambiguity of the application form. Will they be penalised and will there be provision for an appeal?
The order came into effect on 3rd April; therefore the criticisms are now dated. How do the Government propose to deal with them? We know that many cattle are sold on the farm to dealers. How will the Ministry ensure that the premium finds its way to the producer in the price that is paid? The Minister said that in the first instance the scheme was set up to pay at the point of slaughter. We assume that the eventual intention is to move towards the payment of the premium on the farm. That will ensure that the premium goes to the producer, as it should.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he repeat his first question? I did not understand it because I was being spoken to as he put it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was about the sale of cattle on the farm to dealers. Who will be eligible for the premium? How will the Ministry ensure that when cattle are sold in that form the premium will find its way back to the producer?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining clearly this dubious scheme. It appears that beef producers' income is bound to go down as a result of the scheme. I believe that the money available would have been better directed at the prime producers of the beef rather than the fatteners.
I was intrigued to learn—and perhaps the noble Baroness can explain it—about the sexual discrimination against the female of the species. Why should she be deprived of the extra £30 per head when she goes to slaughter, poor dear? Is that a Common Market decision? According to the terms of the order are ancient bulls included among animals fattened on the farm, however old they are when going to slaughter? It appears to me that they probably are.
The noble Baroness expressed the fear that there may be teething troubles. The scheme is much more likely to have ear troubles, because the explanatory note to the order states:
"Authorised officers at deadweight centres are authorised to remove ears of carcases when they are marked and to take possession of such ears when an offence under section 7 of the Agriculture Act 1957 is reasonably suspected".
The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Is it not true that many Common Market regulations in relation to agriculture lend themselves to fraud? The requirement is that the animals be fattened for at least two months on the farm from which they are finally sent for slaughter before the headage can be paid. Most people know that often dealers eventually grade the cattle and take them to slaughter. The requirement that they be grazed by the final owner for two months appears to lend itself to fraud. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us about that matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if I cannot tell your Lordships now I shall write to you. I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Hooson. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister will read with great care the points that they made. We have not closed our minds to alterations. I shall certainly bring to his attention the point about the difference between the variable and special premiums.
I recognise the fact that there have been problems with the completion of application forms. In the main they relate to the declaration which the applicant must make of the number of animals for which he has claimed premium. In reprints of this form we shall make it clear that the declaration is intended to be exclusive of the animals included on the current application form and applicants will not be penalised.
The punching of holes in animals' ears is now enshrined in Community law. We know of no satisfactory alternative method of ensuring that animals on which payment is claimed at live markets
468
are not re-presented for a premium at deadweight centres. That is one of the factors in trying to avoid fraud.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way, it is not the punching of the ears but their removal which is mentioned in the order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes, but it is the same kind of point. I remind the noble Lord that the ears are not removed until the animals are dead, and it is one way of preventing fraud. The different rules apply to animals which are exported. The Commission requires that the producers should be able to claim premium on those provided that the animals are at least nine months old and they have been kept by the producer for at least two months.
All those concerned with the buying and selling of animals or carcases in respect of which premium has been claimed are required to keep records of their transactions. These records are essential for the follow-up checks which we are required to carry out on farms. Their purpose is to establish the fact that applicants for premium are engaged in the business of fattening cattle for slaughter and that they have sufficient means for production to have fattened for at least two months the number of animals on which premium has been claimed. In order to carry out the checks we need powers of entry, which we have obtained. They are rather wider than usual but have been approved by the Home Office. They enable inspectors to enter on land which a producer had rented under a short-term let or licence and on which he claimed to have produced beef, even though the applicant's interest in the land did not exist at the time when the inspection was made. Therefore, we are taking many measures in order to deal with the possibilities of fraud.
The subject of dealers was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The premium is payable to the producer who declares that he fattens animals and not directly to dealers.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would like me to enlarge on heifers. All I know is that they are all meant to be virgins. The ending of the beef variable premium scheme results in a significant loss of support for heifer beef because heifers are not eligible for the new special premium. Neither the Commission nor other member states were prepared to consider extending the special premium to heifers. Since most member states operate the premium scheme on farm, inclusion of heifers would give rise to difficulties of control. How can one reasonably be expected to distinguish between a heifer which has been raised for beef and one being raised as a replacement for either the beef or the dairy herd?
I hope that I have answered noble Lords' questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.10 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 103C
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(1A) The duty under subsection (1) above shall include the duty, in relation to any relevant body, to continue to make facilities available for angling at least to the extent prevailing at the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to ensure that fisheries are managed in such a way that the general public is allowed the opportunity to fish. Again, we are dealing with our apprehensions as to what will happen to existing user rights over the lands transferred on the passage of this Bill and the ensuing flotation and creation of companies. Unless there are clear words on the face of the Bill, those companies will possibly contemplate not only disposing of the land which they acquire but also changing its use.
There is no doubt that water authorities could substantially increase their income from fishing if fishing rights were leased to the highest bidder and if the general angler were excluded. Many companies and organisations are prepared to pay quite handsomely for exclusive fishing rights, but in the past the water authorities sought to ensure that both the local angler and the visitor had an opportunity to fish a variety of waters in the area. Under the present legislation a clear incentive exists for water undertakers to develop their properties in such a way as to maximise income rather than use. Once existing leases and agreements come to an end, it is unlikely that rents will be retained at a level the local community and clubs can afford.
Furthermore, the pressure on the all too few stretches of water available for the general public to fish will increase and the gradual erosion of those facilities is inevitable. The amendment which we propose seeks to ensure the continuation of access to fishing by the general public and the local clubs at a price which they can afford. I can well imagine that the Minister will say that what happens to use, rents and arrangements is a matter for the future. Of course it is. That is what is so paralysingly frightening about the attitude of the Government as regards the use of our water facilities and particularly, in this instance, the use which anglers have had.
The noble Earl and others in this Committee may not be affected by the cost of fishing or by the accessibility and availability of it. On the other hand, they may be. However, the noble Earl will not need me to tell him that millions of people fish in the River Lea, which is in my local area. People fish in literally thousands of areas where there is access to fishing of disparate kinds. That provides them with sport, enjoyment and a way of life. They spend their spare time happily and sometimes fruitfully, but often not, at a price which they can afford. This is a probing amendment with purpose. I should like the Minister to tell me that there are plans to try to ensure that the future owners of lands where there are fishing facilities presently available will continue to allow access to the ordinary public, the members of an angling club, at affordable rents.
"Affordable" is a flexible term. We are not talking about low or subsidised rents. We must be realistic about this matter and we must be realistic in respect of costs. However, I would jib if the Minister says that a future owner who is looking at this matter primarily for profit can decide that a rent which may well be £50 a year can rise to £250 a year. There are people to whom £50 or even £200 may be acceptable but we do not wish to see money being the only criterion used to decide whether people can continue to enjoy their existing sport. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has done a good service by referring to angling because that is the largest participant sport in this country. One hopes that facilities which have existed for anglers in the past will be granted in the future or allowed to continue in the future and, indeed, that where possible other facilities may be made available to them.
However, I invite the noble Lord's attention to the fact that Clause 8(4) states:
"Without prejudice to its other duties under this section, it shall be the duty of the Authority, to such extent as it considers desirable, generally to promote—
(c) the use of such waters and land for recreational purposes".
The noble Lord has singled out angling, but there are other recreational pursuits on water; namely, sailing, rowing and water skiing. Water skiing is all right so long as the lake or reservoir is big enough, because to have water skiing in rather confined spaces is dangerous and sometimes environmentally unpleasant.
The question arises as to whether it is right to secure the interests of angling without also mentioning the others and whether in any event it is right to do that by means of this amendment which the noble Lord proposes when the terms of subsection (4)(c) are so comprehensive with regard to recreational purposes. Therefore, while sympathising with the noble Lord, I should not have thought that this amendment was necessary.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may make another point here. Surely the rivers will be looked after by the National Rivers Authority. I believe that the only cases where the water authorities will be involved will be on their own reservoirs. There is a difference and I wonder, in view of what has been said, whether the two are being confused.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to ask a slightly different question, although I support my noble friend in his desire to see that angling remains within the reach of all those who currently enjoy it. I am rather concerned that in the pursuit of maximising profits from angling societies, insufficient regard will be paid to the needs of conservation, which, after all, is in the long-term interests of the anglers.
Can the Minister advise me on the requirements in the draft code of practice, which I am sure he has with him? Page 21 states:
"When improving or developing fisheries for sport and recreation they should consult conservation bodies over any practice which is likely to damage the natural habitat of a designated site".

471
Can the Minister tell me which conservation bodies are in mind for the purposes of this document? Can he enlarge a little on what form the consultation is expected to take and how firmly that requirement will be implemented?
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, Amendment No. 103 concerns fishing and requires that undertakers make their facilities available for fishing at least to the extent prevailing at the time the Bill is passed.
The aim of the amendment is to protect and guarantee the position of existing fishing facilities after privatisation. That is an objective which the Government fully share with those on both sides of the Committee. There is nothing between us on that. The question is whether that objective would be better served by adopting the amendment or simply by adhering to the present terms of the Bill. The fact is that the amendment is unnecessary; indeed, in some respects it could even weaken and undermine the Bill's provisions.
In Clause 8(3) an obligation is placed upon all relevant bodies to make their water and land available for recreation in the best manner. This substantially continues the present duty in the Water Act. Further, a provision in paragraph 48 of Schedule 23 provides that, subject to any transfer scheme, the NRA and the water authorities' successor companies can continue to do anything under Clause 8 which they were doing under Section 20 of the Water Act.
We have supplemented this with relevant provisions of the code of practice. This states quite clearly that there shall be a presumption that, subject to suitable terms and conditions, public use of sporting and recreational facilities, once established, should be maintained by the grant or renewal of leases or licences.
At the same time the undertakers are to aim to contribute, as circumstances offer, to the wider provision of sport and recreation resources; to secure the best use of suitable existing and new resources; and to plan to cater fairly and equitably for as broad a range of interest groups as is practicable. These are not empty words. The Secretary of State will be under an obligation to take account of the code requirements in determining how and when to use his powers to enforce compliance with the Clause 8 duties. The amendment before us would require undertakers to continue to make their facilities available for fishing at least to the extent prevailing at the time this Bill is passed.
By any criteria fishing is a very important recreation, whether by sheer number of enthusiasts-some 3 million, it is suggested—or by their diversity of the sections of the community from which they are drawn. It is inconceivable in these circumstances that the undertakers and the NRA could exclude fishing from their duty.
It was at this point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, expressed his concern at affordable rents. I can only say that it would be extremely unwise of the undertakers to have rents that are too high. They could hardly expect people
472
to fish their waters, so it would not be sensible to do that. Furthermore, fishing interests will have the benefits in the NRA of the separate regional fisheries advisory committees. The NRA will inherit the duty to maintain, improve and develop the fisheries in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1976.
As we have made clear in another place, while the Government have every sympathy with the objective, such an amendment is both too imprecise and too rigid. What test are we, for instance, to use as to whether facilities are in future being made available to the extent now prevailing; the number of reservoirs at which some fishing is allowed; the extent of fishing permitted; or the actual number of clubs and day passes? Unless we know how we would determine these matters, we shall be imparting a false impression of precision into the duties which would be misleading and unhelpful.
Over time also the amendment would prove undesirably rigid. It is possible, though unlikely, that in a particular undertaker's area there might be a fall in demand for its fishing facilities—perhaps because of increased provision by other bodies. If this coincided with substantial current demand for another recreation pursuit which conflicted with angling, such a provision would stop the undertaker achieving the requirements of the code—that is, putting recreational resources to the fullest use and meeting the widest range of interests. That cannot be right.
My noble friend Lord Balfour asked about fisheries and bankside activities. When improving or developing fisheries for sport and recreation the undertakers should consult conservation bodies over any practice which is likely to damage the natural habitat of a designated site. Practices which could result in damage include intensive stocking, stocking with alien species of fish not naturally found in the receiving waters and the use of anti-fouling paints. This depends on which body is responsible for designating the site; for example, the NCC on a site of special scientific interest.
I hope it follows from what I have said about the actual terms and effects of the amendment that we do not believe it should be accepted, much as we have sympathy with the proposers' underlying aims. Therefore, I trust that it will not be necessary to press this to a Division.
The Earl of Onslow: Before we go further, has my noble friend any idea whether the present rents are artificially depressed by a general desire by the water authorities not to be particularly commercial? Are the rents likely to go shooting through the roof? That has happened when certain industries have been privatised. Are rents near what could be classed as market rents? Obviously I declare an interest in that I have a lake for which I charge what I can get, within reason, for people to catch tame trout, which they thoroughly enjoy doing.
However, where people are catching gudgeon on, say, the banks of the Trent and Mersey canal or on some reservoir or other, are the rents near to what should be charged or, if not, is the difference known?
Baroness Nicol: Can the Minister answer my question about which conservation bodies are meant in the code of practice? Is it the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, or whom?
The Earl of Arran: In reply to the noble Baroness, it depends upon the circumstances as to which conservation body would be responsible.
As regards the question asked by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I understand—and I believe it to be right—that in some areas the market rents are being charged but nevertheless there is a loss. However, it depends very much on what rates individual areas charge.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a full explanation of how he views the future. I certainly feel that those outside the Committee can be assured that the Government believe that there are arrangements whereby the best interests of anglers can be preserved in respect of what goes on, the charges made and so on.
I intend to withdraw the amendment because at this stage of the Bill all we want to do is to get a little more on the official record from the Government than has been said before. It is a certainty that there will be circumstances in which the charge that is made to anglers in some areas is looked on as reasonable while the same charge will be looked on as punitive in others. I cannot believe that, after the regime of this Government for the past 10 years, there will be many public or publicly-oriented bodies that have not been forced to move if not to full market rents then to something approaching them. I doubt very much whether there will be very many bodies where there is what one might call a blatant shortfall in what has been charged; for example, a nominal fee of £5 instead of £50. Most public bodies have been forced to try to come to terms with the fact that not only is subvention from the centre declining but there is also pressure in other ways.
I should like to believe that in future some of the bodies that will be responsible—namely, the new owners—will not prefer to have fewer people fish and higher fees that are likely to mean a greater income charged rather than have more people fish at a lower charge. The former is bureaucratically more convenient. Perhaps even a better quality of fishing may result. At the moment it is generally the case that most water authorities are more anxious to ensure that the fishing facility is available to the many than to try to upgrade the quality of the fishing and have it enjoyed by the few. I subscribe to the former rather than to the latter.
I do not dispute what the Minister said nor am I too upset at the possibility that what he believes may not take place. He has a more touching faith than I in the willingness of people outside who might have a goldmine of one kind or another in their hands and out of which they can make a great deal of money, actually saying "We shan't do it either because it's unfair, it's not right or it's to different to what it was before we came". I have a shrewd idea that, when the accountants and the managers get to grips with how they are to maximise and utilise
474
the new assets, they will be primarily, if not wholly, concerned with maximising the profits that they can get. I am grateful to the Minister. Those outside this Committee will read what he has said. I may very well come back and we shall have further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 105, I should point out that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 106 and 107.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 8, line 16, leave out from ("body") to ("for") in line 19 and insert ("to preserve").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No 109, which one might think of as a fallback position. I say straightaway that these are probing amendments. It should be recognised that the Government at Report stage in another place made some progress towards meeting the very real concerns which were expressed about the risk to freedom of access to the countryside arising from water privatisation. In particular at that stage the Government changed the words from "public rights of access" to "retaining for the public any freedom of access", which we felt widened the scope of the duty and made it more powerful.
Clause 8(6) is very curious. It states:
"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".
Why should that be put in and whoever suggested that they should be required to make recreational facilities free of charge? In any piece of land owned by a water authority or anyone else there is almost certain to be a mixture of charging and not charging. You might as well say that you will put into the Act, "Nothing in this section shall forbid recreational facilities to be made available free of charge". It would be as necessary or as redundant. The Act and its provisions in this section and subsequent ones stand on their own merits. If the interpretation could be that some particular part of water company land should be made available free of charge then the section should say so, and if that is not the case it should also say so. There is no reason for it to be second guessed by this particular provision in subsection (6).
As it is, the duty is still an extremely weak one. At present a water undertaker has to have regard to the desirability of preserving access, but it is perfectly free to say "Yes, we have had regard to the desirability of preserving access but we are not going to do anything about it". That does not make very good sense. We have discussed the question of "having regard to" in the past, but the issue of whether they are going to have regard to any such duty is affected by Clause 7 and by the duty on water undertakings to maximise their rate of return. It is true of course that the Secretary of State has the power to enforce any "have regard to" duties, but

475
he has only the power to enforce the duty to have regard. He does not have the power to enforce a duty to do anything once the water undertaking has had regard to something.
It is also true that there is an obligation on the undertakings to put their land to the best use for recreation. But that is qualified by saying that this is necessary only when it is considered practicable by the undertaking and when it is consistent with the functions of that undertaking. Altogether this whole question of access to water-undertaking land and access to the land free of charge where it has been free of charge in the past is not very satisfactory or clearly expressed in the Bill. We have put down an amendment to take out the unnecessary subsection (6). In Amendment No. 109 we have made specific reference to the need to preserve public access on foot. I believe it will be agreed that there may be occasions when special facilities such as car parks are required to be provided by water undertakings. In those circumstances it would be proper for a charge to be made.
Public access on foot is not a case of that kind. By definition that kind of access is something that is not going to cost the water undertaking a great deal of money to provide and it should not be the subject of charging or of any further restriction. There has been considerable correspondence between the Ramblers' Association and the Minister on this matter and no doubt we shall refer to this again in a later amendment. I am now referring to Amendment No. 109. I hope that on the limited aspect of access for the public on foot to water undertaking land the Government will feel that there is no major issue of principle which is breached by the amendment and will be able to agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 105 and 109 relate to Clause 8(2), as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. This places the general duty on relevant bodies to have regard to the desirability of preserving public access to their land of amenity value. Amendment No. 105 seeks to substitute "preserve" for "have regard to the desirability of preserving". Amendment No. 109 is consequential upon that.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I deal with this issue at some length today. Our proposals have been the subject of persistent—I am almost tempted to say determined—misunderstanding with which I must seek to deal. Perhaps I may set out first the present position on public access, then the various arguments that have been raised against the proposals, and finally, against this background, comment on the amendments.
As noble Lords will recognise, public access to water authority land, established and developed over many years, is made available on a number of different bases. There are permanent statutory rights of way. There are rights of access established effectively permanently under local legislation such as the Birmingham and Manchester Corporation Acts; there are access agreements with national parks or other bodies where the rights often pass with the land to successors in title. In addition, there are many
476
paths and bridleways established only by custom and practice. And finally there is concessionary access made available at the discretion of the water authority itself.
I recognise that there is great concern that after privatisation the undertakers may restrict such access. But I do not believe there is any basis for such fears. Nothing the authorities have said or done indicates they will act in this way and, given the nature of most of the land in question—upland, rural areas—there would surely be little advantage to them in it. Since 1974 they have taken down the fences. As they have indicated, they have no intention of erecting them again.
Be that as it may, what will the position be after privatisation? In the first place dedicated rights of way will of course be unaffected. Secondly, arrangements established under private legislation, as for instance in parts of the Lake District and Peak District, will also continue. And, by an amendment to the Bill in another place, the Government have specifically denied themselves any right to vary or amend such legislation in consequence of the enactment of the Bill. Thirdly, in any case where access may form part of a management agreement with a national park authority, such arrangements and agreements continue under successor owners unless there is express provision otherwise.
So the only area of uncertainty we are left with will be concessionary access granted at the discretion of the water authority. However, the fact is that Clause 7 provides a sound basis for continuation of policies of the water authorities by their successors. By an amendment in another place to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, we have put beyond doubt that the duties in Clause 9(2) embrace all freedom of access, including concessionary arrangements and the right to roam, where this is currently allowed.
Now it has, I recognise, been suggested that the terms of the duty are not strong. On the contrary, we believe they will be fully effective. Under the terms of these duties, and having regard for what authorities have in the past done in pursuit of it, there will be little scope for the undertakers seriously to alter their predecessors' policies in this area. The code of practice reinforces this. It requires a positive approach from undertakers towards public access. It incorporates a presumption that policies for opening up land of high amenity value for rambling and quiet countryside pursuits will continue. It refers to arrangements—including consultation—for establishing the current pattern of access rights—formal and informal. And the duties, interpreted in the light of the code, will of course be enforceable by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord drew our attention to Clause 8(6), which he described as curious. The provision, necessary mainly for technical reasons, simply makes clear that the existence of the recreational duties does not of itself entail that recreational facilities should necessarily and always be provided free. Perhaps I may give an example. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has no desire to be voted "Man of the Year" by the Shooting Times. The North-West Regional Water Authority has a

477
number of grouse moors. I am sure that he would feel it right and proper that it should charge the shooting community for the use of them.
The reality therefore is that we have provided a framework which will secure continuation of present policies and practice without bureaucracy and also without the undue rigidity which would result if we took away the discretion the Bill allows and sought to make each and every informal or concessionary arrangement binding. Against this background perhaps I may make clear why the amendments are in the Government's view unacceptable.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 109 would in effect make mandatory all existing access arrangements. The relevant body would have to preserve them rather than have regard to the desirability of preserving them. But what must rule out the noble Lord's proposal is its rigidity. This implies that all rights of access and recreational arrangements, of whatever kind and however temporary they may have been intended to be, shall be indefinitely maintained.
This has two weaknesses. It does not give sufficient recognition to the operational needs of the undertakers which may reasonably require them to withdraw public access at a certain time or in certain circumstances. If undertakers felt they were never again to have any flexibility in the variation or withdrawal of access arrangements, the last thing they would do would be ever to allow any new such arrangements in the first place.
The second weakness is this. Public access is a good—but it is not a unique or overriding good. In many urban areas there is a dearth of suitable land for housing. If in certain cases water authority sites can help to meet that need and that means varying or overriding certain arrangements for public access or recreation, then that is surely not unreasonable—so long as the outcome is consistent with the local planning authority's perception of the best interests of the local community. If one goes to the rural extreme at the other end and finds that somewhere in Cumbria a new pair of golden eagles has landed in an area constantly used by ramblers, it would be entirely reasonable that perhaps 1,000 acres should be declared an exclusion zone in the hope that procreation would take place there.
I have to say therefore that we find these proposals unacceptably rigid and inflexible, and for that reason we are unable to support them. I believe that anyone who reflects upon the provision of the Bill and the code of practice should welcome our proposals. They provide an enforceable framework for ensuring that present policies continue and that the great upland areas owned by the water authorities remain open to public access and enjoyment while allowing reasonable flexibility to the undertakers to allow for changes of circumstances and new operational requirements.
While I hope I have been able to persuade the Committee on this point, I recognise I am unlikely to have been able to persuade the Ramblers' Association and some related organisations which seem intent upon recreating the "mass trespasses" of the past without the slightest shred of present
478
justification. I do deplore this. It is without justification. For, as far as this clause leaves ramblers and climbers in any doubt as to the future security of their pursuit—and it should not—any doubt should be wholly dispelled by another subsection of the clause. This is subsection (3), which requires relevant bodies to put their land and water to best use for recreation. This is an absolute duty, not one of those "have regard for" duties which have been so unfairly criticised. It is the duty most relevant to rambling and climbing, but never mentioned by the Ramblers' Association. However, I hope the Committee will not overlook it. It should provide all the reassurance that can be needed that public access for rambling and informal recreation will be fully secured after privatisation by the terms of the Clause 8 duties.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may see fit to withdraw his amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister chose gratuitously to malign the intentions of the Ramblers' Association and in his final words went so far as to make allusions to its determination to break the law. The Minister should reflect on what he said. If this is related, among other things, to the Rivington Rally, which is perhaps the most public manifestation of the attitude of the Ramblers' Association to its continued free access to the land which it has previously enjoyed, the Committee should listen carefully to those 2,451 people who signed a statement when they met on 7th May. This is what they subscribed to:
"We the undersigned pledge our lifelong intent to regard ourselves at liberty, in exercise of the simple human freedoms which we Britons rightly claim, to walk with our families and friends for recreation of body and mind wherever public access to open country is presently enjoyed by a water authority. We shall cause no damage, break no criminal law, neither threaten nor commit any violence nor intrude upon anybody's privacy. But if free access to these lands is at any time denied, we now declare that the threat of legal action for trespass which is not a criminal offence shall not deter us from exercising our traditional right of access to the hills".
The Minister may interpret that as he wishes. I know that many people—not only in the Ramblers' Association, which represents only a tiny fraction of the millions of people involved—feel that lands which have hitherto been made available to them should continue to be made available to them for the innocent pastime of walking. I am afraid that so far as I am concerned—my noble friend Lord McIntosh has yet to respond to what the Minister has said—the noble Lord is not creating a good atmosphere in which to negotiate or to continue to have a relationship with a responsible body of people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the Minister saw fit to accuse the Ramblers' Association and those who took part in yesterday's demonstration of being misguided. My noble friend had made it very clear that many people there were seriously concerned about a restriction in their rights and were seriously dissatisfied with the Government's proposals. However, they acknowledged and were grateful for the progress made on Report in another place.

479
I am surprised that the Minister should then see fit to repeat what the statement says in subsection (3) of this clause about the obligation to ensure that land is made available for recreational purposes. On moving the amendment I said that this is not an unqualified duty, although it is hedged about with the condition that it is only required to be as reasonably practicable and as consistent with the functions of the undertakers as possible. However, the trouble is that less scrupulous people can drive a coach and horses through this sort of wording; indeed, they have done so.
The wording:
"have regard to the desirability",
is not new; indeed, it can be found in Section 17 of the Countryside Act 1968. It simply has not provided the protection which is required. An authority which wants to restrict access in any way can have regard to the desirability of not restricting access. It can meet and receive a deputation, although it does not even have to do that, it just has to say, "We have considered the matter". It can then go ahead and restrict the access. That of course is not an adequate protection and the Ramblers' Association and the people who met yesterday at Rivington do not think that it is adequate.
This is a complex matter and I do not wish to be accused again of proposing an absolute duty when it is clear that there are occasions when such an absolute duty would not be appropriate. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, we have already gone around in circles on once occasion about this wording and therefore I do not propose to do so again this evening. However, I undertake that this is a matter to which we shall have to return at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings if the very real concerns—in my view very justified concerns—of those who make active use of our countryside are to be met. I do not believe that the Government have done so thus far. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 8, line 25, after ("to") insert ("subsections (1) and (2) above, and to").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to ensure that the relevant body—that is, the water undertaker—which has a duty to make water or land available for recreational purposes, that is,
"water or land associated with water",
as stated in line 34 of subsection (3), does so in a manner consistent with its conservation interests and amenity value. This again raises a most important issue which was touched upon earlier this afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, questioned me about a previous amendment. He wanted to make sure that when I talked about conservation I was not doing so at the expense of recreation. I am not sure whether I was able to
480
reassure him on that point. However, the point is a valid one because there is, as Ministers have said today, the possibility of a conflict between conservation and recreation.
I think that the Norfolk Broads would be a good example of that conflict. Clearly it is desirable from many points of view that there should be wide access to areas on the Broads, which give enormous pleasure to people who wish to go boating and so on. However, at the same time there is a need for the conservation of bird life in certain parts of the area. Therefore the relevant bodies, the water undertakers, will have to bear in mind both of those priorities when organising access to their land for recreational purposes.
The amendment stipulates that when such undertakers are fulfilling their obligations under Clause 8(3) they should do so in the light of the conservation responsibilities imposed upon them under subsections (1) and (2). I do not think that there is any way in which we can get rid of this potential conflict between conservation and recreation entirely; it will always be a matter of discussion case by case. However, we hope by putting the two issues together in this way that we may come closer to the regulatory framework in which the best decision can be reached in as many cases as is posssible. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 8, which sets out the general recreational duties of the relevant bodies—that is, the NRA, the companies and the internal drainage boards. The amendment would subordinate the recreation duty to that for public access. Such an amendment would undermine the proper balance which we believe should be struck between access and recreation duties. It could for instance inhibit the relevant bodies from ever leasing off parts of their land to which there has previously been public access to sporting clubs for specific recreational uses. That is something which one might not consider appropriate in many cases but it is surely not something which should be wholly precluded. The code of practice requires that putting land in water to "best use" for recreation involves striking a reasonable balance among public and private uses and the variety of particular leisure pursuits. That is surely right.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also rightly pointed out, there will for ever be a conflict to an extent, no matter how small. Therefore, for the reasons which I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am not satisfied with phrases in a code of conduct which is in itself unsatisfactory and which has inadequate powers. However, I agree with him that striking a reasonable balance is the right way to approach the matter. It does not of course solve the problem in any particular case, but it at least reminds those concerned of the differences of interest which may arise. I thought that Amendment No. 110A went some way towards striking a reasonable balance; but the Minister seems

481
to think that it is putting recreational interests in a subordinate position to conservation interests. I must stress that it was not my intention to do so as a blanket measure. However, I think that I had better read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 8, line 28, after ("of) insert ("each of the following, that is to say, the Secretary of State, the Minister, the Director and").
The noble Lord said: I now return to the fears which I expressed on Second Reading regarding what might be called the boating interests. Those concerned are anxious so far as possible to maintain what could be termed the status quo. While Clause 8 appears generally to reflect the existing water authorities' duties as contained in Sections 20 and 22 of the Water Act 1973, the recreational duty contained in subsection (3) appears in many ways to have been lessened.
I said initially that boating interests were fearful that the general duties might have been lessened under this Bill compared to those contained in the Water Act 1973. Amendment No. 111 is a small amendment. My aim is to make the duty applicable to the Secretary of State, the Minister and the director as well as the relevant bodies. The wording appears to have dropped the Water Act wording. I am seeking an additional reassurance that the change in the wording does not mean anything. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Amendment No. 111 proposes that the Secretary of State, the Minister and the director general should also have the duty to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to put their lands and waters to best use for recreation. If that is literally what is intended then it should not be accepted. It would be quite inappropriate since the Secretary of State and director have no special rights to land or water on which, in the context of water legislation, the duty could bite; and to go wider would of course be quite absurd. But if the proposal is that the Secretary of State and director should have the duty to take such steps as are reasonably practicable for securing that the companies put their land and water to best use for recreation, then maybe there is something in it. From what the proposer, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, I think that he intends that second approach.
The Secretary of State already has enforcement powers in relation to provisions of this clause, but we recognise that there may be merit in associating him more directly with the discharge of that duty. It is at least a possibility worth considering further, and if the proposer agrees that is what we should like to do.
Lord Greenway: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reassurance and for the fact that he will look at this matter further. I look forward to hearing from him on this point at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 8, line 30, leave out from ("practicable;") to end of line 32.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113 relates to the "so far as consistent" proviso contained in subsection (3)(b) which is new in the Bill compared with the Water Act 1973. It may be potentially damaging given that most, if not all, of the other functions of the new plcs are most efficiently fostered in the absence of any recreational activity. One of the new companies might not be well disposed towards boating people. It could happily argue that providing recreational facilities was inconsistent with the supply of water.
The aim of the amendment is to delete the proviso or, failing that, to be reassured that the duty to ensure that the land is made available for recreational purposes will not be rendered ineffective as a result. I should be interested to learn under what circumstances the Government believe that that duty would conflict with,
"the purposes of the enactment relating to the functions"
of the plc, or even the NRA, especially in relation to provisions contained in Clause 7.
Amendment No. 114 seeks to delete the qualifying words,
"so long as that body has rights to the use of water or land associated with water".
Those words appear to leave open the possibility that subsidiary bodies established by the private water companies would not be bound by the recreational duties contained in Clause 8. The point was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The Government have accepted that interpretation subject to the proviso that the land holdings are not used for functional or operational purposes. They have gone on to argue that the appropriate safeguards will be provided through the existing planning system.
The boating industries feel that those safeguards are inadequate. They would like to see subsidiary or associated organisations included within the definition of relevant body contained in Clause 8(7).
Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 follow Amendment No. 111 in that I am seeking an additional reassurance that the changes contained in the Bill, as compared with the existing Water Act, would not be detrimental to boating recreational interests. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendments relate to Clause 8(3) which sets out the general recreational duties of the relevant bodies. The first point that must be made is that this really is a strong duty: it requires the relevant bodies not just to put their water and land to use for recreation but to do so in the best manner. It is not only a strong duty, it is an important one. As the Committee will recognise, the undertakers will inherit not only the reservoirs—a major resource for water recreation—but also the upland gathering grounds, many of which we recognise are of exceptional amenity value. The fact

483
that the duty is an important one is not of itself a justification for accepting amendments apparently designed to strengthen it but whose net effect would be to render it in practice less effective. For that is the effect that we fear. For instance, Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 would remove the essential qualification on the duty that it be performed consistently with, in the case of the undertakers, their primary duties of water supply and sewerage. Amendment No. 112 would in addition delete the qualification that the duty requires only "such steps as are reasonably practicable".
It is surely quite unreasonable to propose, as that amendment does, that the recreational duty should be allowed to conflict with or override other duties, for instance those for the water supply and sewerage. Moreover, reference to "practicable steps" normally means physically practicable, and is therefore without that due regard for cost which the present formulation of "reasonably practicable" permits. Again, I have to say that that is unrealistic.
Amendment No. 114 is equally unsound in seeking to delete the qualification,
"so long as that body has rights to the use of land or water"
for if it were deleted the clause could require that the undertaker retain the right to the use of land and water if it could be argued that disposal of them did not represent the best use that could be made of the right from a recreational standpoint. That would surely be an unreasonable constraint on the body. It is for these reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Geenway, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greenway: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. The main point I noted was that my amendments would make the duty less effective than the wording contained in the Bill at present. I certainly wish to read what the noble Lord has said more carefully tomorrow. In the meantime, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of their duties under subsection (1), (2) and (3) above, every relevant body shall have regard to the desirability of securing that, in relation to any land which it may be empowered to dispose of, any such disposal does not prejudice the achievement of the objects of those subsections.").
The noble Lord said: The aim of this amendment is to secure that the recreational duty now contained in Section 20 of the Water Act 1973 is also applicable to land which may be disposed of. The boating interests share widespread concern, a concern which has been expressed from all quarters of the House, about the freedom which the private water companies will have to dispose of non-functional assets. Indeed there will be major pressures on the companies to do so and the wider exploitation of their assets by development can be regarded as inevitable.
484
It is appreciated that such developments may on occasions increase the opportunities for providing boating recreational facilities. But the threat posed to existing recreational uses is, I submit, in danger of being overlooked. As I said at the outset in moving these few amendments, the boating interests are very keen so far as possible to maintain the situation which they enjoy at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, Amendment No. 115A:
Line 4, after ("land") insert ("historic buildings or portable antiquities").
The noble Lord said: I do not think that this is a matter of great moment but it is consistent with amendments we moved earlier today about the heritage and sites of historic interest. We believe that the same conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, wishes to apply to land should apply also to historic buildings or portable antiquities. I hope that he agrees that this amendment does not in any way conflict with his intentions but improves the amendment which he has moved. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am rather intrigued by these amendments which would in effect apply the duties under Clause 8 to land disposal, including historic buildings or portable antiquities, by requiring that no such disposal should prejudice the purpose of the clause.
In carefully defined and relevant circumstances, we believe that it could represent one means by which areas of special environmental importance with features of particular value to conservation or amenity might be safeguarded upon disposal. I cannot say it is the best method nor the only method but it is certainly one which I should like to consider.
Lord Greenway: I am rather intrigued with the Minister's reply. I am delighted that we may have found a proposal which he feels he ought to look at again. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who moved an amendment to my amendment. I am speaking for the boating interests whereas his interests seem to be wider. I thank the Minister for agreeing to examine the point again; in the meantime I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): We must take the amendment to the amendment first.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has said. In the light of the Minister's offer, which I should be delighted to take up with him if he wishes me to do so, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 115A.
Amendment No. 115A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greenway: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 115, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 8, line 38, after ("Authority") insert ("and every internal drainage board").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116 I wish also to speak to the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 118. The purpose of the amendment is to require internal drainage boards, in addition to the National Rivers Authority, to promote the conservation of nature, natural beauty, flora and fauna under Clause 8(4) of the Bill.
Under existing Water Act legislation, water authorities may only further conservation as an integral part of discharging their functions under any other section of the water and land drainage Acts. Clause 8(4) of the Bill is a new and extremely welcome measure since it gives the National Rivers Authority a positive duty to promote the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty plus flora and fauna. It would enable the authority, for example, to allocate a modest budget to the undertaking of free-standing conservation work. It is therefore surely of considerable benefit to extend this permissive duty to the other major groups involved in drainage work; that is, the internal drainage boards. There are over 250 of these internal drainage boards in England and Wales. They are responsible for drainage matters over low-lying areas of England and Wales. These areas include some of the most important wetlands; for instance the Somerset Levels and the North Kent marshes, the Ouse Washes and the broadlands of Norfolk, Suffolk and East Anglia.
At present, the internal drainage boards are restricted in the same way as water authorities in the extent to which they may undertake conservation work. They may only undertake conservation work as an integral part of a project undertaken for land drainage purposes. There may be circumstances in which the internal drainage boards may wish to undertake free-standing conservation work separate from land drainage schemes: for example, to remedy ecological damage caused by land drainage schemes in the past.
Even if landlords and occupiers wished such remedial work to be carried out, the expenditure would be ultra vires and the boards would risk censure from the district auditor. Acceptance of this amendment would release the drainage boards from this unnecessary restriction and would give them a permissive duty to promote conservation. The amendment, which has the support of the RSPB and the Nature Conservancy Council, would do much to aid the conservation of wetlands and the wildlife within them in some of the most important areas for conservation in England and Wales. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of these amendments is to place on the internal drainage boards a discretionary duty to promote conservation and recreation in respect of watercourses under their control. This promotional duty is a general duty placed upon the NRA and is quite separate from its conservation and environmental obligations related to its flood defence and land drainage functions.
486
When carrying out its flood defence and land drainage function, the NRA will be bound by the duty under Clause 8(1) of the Bill to act so far as it can to further conservation and the enhancement of natural beauty and to take into account any effects its activities might have on the beauty or amenity of the countryside, its flora, fauna and buildings.
This duty will equally apply to IDBs. In fact, it will be a re-enactment of the current statute under Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, on which the Government have given detailed practical advice. This advice has been well received by both drainage and conservation interests and is widely observed. It will, however, be updated in association with the code of practice under Clause 10. In particular, we plan to make it clear that Clause 8(1) positively requires IDBs to further conservation, and the interests of the environment, so far as they reasonably can. We hope this will reassure both the boards and conservation interests which have been doubtful of the extent of the IDBs' duty in the past.
The general duty placed upon the NRA at Clause 8(4) is to promote not only conservation but also recreation. It will be given practical effect by the NRA's powers at Clause 141 to carry out works and operations appropriate to its functions. Such works will be funded entirely separately from flood defence. IDBs do not have powers to carry out general works unrelated to drainage under Clause 141, and would therefore have neither the means nor the necessary finance to give a promotional power practical effect. It would, in any case, be inappropriate to extend IDB powers and duties in this way when they are essentially bodies concerned with the provision of land drainage and flood defence. We believe the IDBs' conservation and environmental duties are satisfactorily prescribed by Clause 8(1) and that their recreational activities should be limited to making waters available for that purpose, as already provided by Clause 8(3).
In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the Minister has said, I think he is rather ignoring the fact that this is a permissive duty. It would merely help the National Rivers Authority, and other groups working for the authority, in their duty.
Land drainage work can be very relevant to any conservation work. One of the great cries, particularly in East Anglia where I come from, is that much of the marshlands and wetlands which survive there are under constant threat either from being absorbed by agriculture or from general drainage; for instance, by the removal of water for use in agriculture. However, as the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I shall read what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 8, line 41, after first ("of") insert ("coastal waters, of estuarine waters, of tidal waters and of").
The noble Earl said: I consider that either my amendment or an amendment on these lines is urgently necessary in order to clear up matters in the Bill which relate largely to the use of the English language. Perhaps it should not have surprised me, in a Bill which sets up an authority that is not national and which is concerned with much more than rivers, to find language that seriously confused me and which has evidently equally confused many of the environmental organisations which have lobbied me on this point.
Clause 8(4) gives the authority the specific duty within its general terms of reference of:

"(a) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland waters and of land associated with such waters;

(b) the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment".

The notes on clauses direct us to page 176 of the Bill, which in turn refers us to the Water Resources Act 1963 for the definition of "inland waters". The notes on clauses say that inland waters cover estuaries and lakes as well as rivers.
When I refer to the 1963 Act I see that the term "inland water" means:
"any of the following, that is to say—
(a) so much of any river, stream or other water-course, whether natural or artificial".
I point out that an artificial water course of this nature would mean a canal. I wonder whether it is the Government's intention to give the NRA a duty to promote conservation in canals,
"(b) any lake or pond, whether natural or artificial, and any reservoir or dock".
Again I wonder whether it is the intention of the Government to give the NRA control over conservation of waters in reservoirs, which I think will go the plc. The definition continues:
"(c) so much of any channel, creek, bay, estuary or arm of the sea".
This point was referred to in the debate in another place. The Minister pointed out that "inland waters" includes channels, creeks, bays and estuaries. However, the Minister also said at the time that coastal waters were not covered. Here again I believe that we need clarification rather urgently. We have to accept that in the terms of this Bill inland waters does not mean inland waters in any sense of the English language. I believe that that is a mistake because it confused not only me at first but also a very large number of organisations which have lobbied me.
Speaking as a professional biologist, there is a serious anomaly between the two paragraphs as they stand. Subsection (4)(b) must be interpreted to include the animals and plants of all waters, because that is what it says, and thus must include the denizens of the coastal seas within our national limits—the fish, the crustaceans, the seaweeds and all those creatures which are dependent on permanent or part-time inundation by the sea for their survival. It is clearly the NRA's duty to have the conservation of these in mind.
In coastal waters that is very important. Consents for long sewage outfall pipes are already
488
controversial. In my view they are likely to become more controversial as pressure from the European Community and other member states grows as well as internal pressure from within the nation. At present attention is focused largely on the EC bathing beach directive as the main factor which is creating that pressure when long sea outfalls are installed. Less attention has been paid by the public to the impact on aquatic life forms, but that must also be considered.
A great deal of research has been done and is being done by the Water
Research Centre and the Marine Sciences Committee of NERC on the effects on aquatic life of sea sewage outfalls. I believe that this issue will come to the fore. I welcome subsection (4)(b) in so far as it clearly seems to place the conservation of these fauna within the ambit of the authority which will be concerned with approving or not approving long sea outfalls.
The European Community's directive on shellfish will also be relevant because the shellfish industry is greatly affected. There is no doubt that shellfish are aquatic life. They too should be considered from a conservation point of view.
The non-governmental wildlife organisations which have urged me to put down an amendment of this nature have been fearful for the conservation of the coastal and estuarine environment, which is very important. It includes some of the most spectacular and scenic landscapes of these two nations, England and Wales. Conservation bodies are rightly concerned about the richness of the intertidal muds. However, I believe that, because of the peculiar definition of "inland", those are already covered. It is already the Government's clear intention, as was pointed out in another place, that they should be covered.
It is not helpful in a Bill merely to refer to an Act of 1963 in defining "inland" and to end up with a definition of "inland" which is so peculiar that it includes the maritime and coastal environment. Whatever was said by the Minister in another place, and accepting that coastal seas are those seas below the low water mark at ordinary spring tides—that is where the definition of "inland" ends; the coastal seas lie from the ordinary spring tide low water mark to the limits of our territorial seas—those waters also deserve to have a body dedicated to, or at least interested in, the conservation of wildlife.
It is to draw attention to that matter and to try to bring the language into a sense that will be comprehensible to the ordinary conservation body in the street—the ordinary NGO—that I have put down this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will be obvious to the Committee that Amendment No. 119A has exactly the same effect as that moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I rise only to support heartily everything that he said. It appears that the definition of inland waters is at variance with common sense in that it does not mean what the ordinary man in the street would think it to mean. But when we come to the legal definition—the noble Earl has far more experience of those matters than I do—it means different things in different parts of the legislation.

489
I do not think that it is a matter with which the Government can be content, particularly in the light of the challenges that the noble Earl has thrown down to the Government as to whether the NRA is to deal with such stretches of water as canals and docks. I could not hope to contend with either the expertise or the eloquence of the noble Earl. I can only add my voice in support of him.
Lord Renton: We all know that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is a member of Anglian Water. It is within my recollection that the River Great Ouse is tidal right up as far as Seven Holes Sluice at Needingworth, just below St. Ives. If I remember rightly, the River Nene is tidal as far as Peterborough. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm that Anglian Water at present has responsibility for those tidal waters all the way from King's Lynn to Needingworth in the case of the River Great Ouse and at least as far as Peterborough in the case of the River Nene. If so, we must bear in mind that the NRA will have to assume that responsibility for managing those waters that are at present tidal, but perhaps by definition not strictly inland. Before we go any further and before my noble friend replies, perhaps my noble friend Lord Cranbrook would clarify that point.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The noble Lord is correct. The present definition of "inland", if we follow the 1963 Act, and as I have read my papers, extends to low water of ordinary spring tides. Of course the Anglian Water Authority is concerned with the control of those tidal waters that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Renton: I should have mentioned that of course Needingworth is 40 miles from the sea, so in effect it is a long way inland.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: These two amendments seek to widen in geographical terms the scope of the general promotional duty in Clause 8(4). Their effect would be to extend the NRA's general duty for promotion of conservation and amenity of rivers to cover tidal, coastal and estuarine waters. The provision as drafted applies this duty simply in respect of "inland waters".
However, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has fully grasped the scope of this term for the purposes of this particular provision. The definition of inland waters adopted here is the definition in the Water Resources Act 1963. This includes channels, creeks, bays and estuaries, as my noble friend has already said. Thus some tidal and all estuarine waters are already covered. We accept that that should be so. Estuaries are of great importance in amenity and ecological terms. On two of the three limbs of his amendment, therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied. What is, I accept, not covered is coastal waters generally.
To give the NRA wide conservation and amenity duties in such areas—areas of the sea—would, we suggest, be to give it obligations which would be inherently difficult to discharge. In the case of rivers
490
and estuaries the NRA will have a wide range of related functions which amount to a general responsibility for the protection and management of the waters in question. But that will not be the case with coastal waters. Moreover the NRA already has major duties to perform. To extend them at this stage in the way proposed would not, we believe, be reasonable.
For these reasons we hope that, if pressed, the amendments will not be supported. But I hope the Committee will be reassured by what I have been able to say about the scope of the duties in the clause as drafted.
In particular, in the light of what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has said, I assure him that the duties will apply to rivers, channels, creeks, bays and estuaries and land associated with them all. I believe that that meets my noble friend's particular interests and concerns. Finally, and overall, I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given on the matters that he raised. We shall most certainly consider these points.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank my noble friend for his assurance that these points will be considered, because they are material. Our law should be clear to the ordinary man in the street in the way that it is not at the minute. I would also remind my noble friend that a moment or two ago I pointed out that long sea sewage discharges are well beyond the estuarine limit; that is to say, well beyond the ordinary spring tide low water mark. They must have an effect on the conservation of aquatic life.
Secondly, I would point out that aquatic life such as the mussels and things like that have a pelagic phase in their existence and they are at sea beyond the low tide mark. Thirdly, the effects of discharge, let us say in the Humber estuary, to speak of an estuary I know, extend well beyond the effects of those discharges which are the concern of the NRA. They extend well beyond the ordinary low tide mark. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends will think seriously about the points I have made and will perhaps come back with amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119A and 120 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 8, line 49, at end insert—
("(6) It shall be the duty of each of the following, that is to say the Secretary of State, the Minister, the Director and every relevant body in furtherance of their duties in the foregoing subsections of this section to consult with any relevant Local Authority, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the owner and occupiers of any land and any other person, body or association who in their opinions is likely to be affected by or as a result of or interested in the exercise by them of any of the aforesaid duties and to consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.").
The noble Lord said: I think Ministers will instantly recognise that this amendment arises from the large numbers of bodies that are concerned with the environment and that have been concerned

491
about this Bill and with putting their views to the Government and to us. Although I am not saying that this amendment has the agreement of all the bodies named in the Bill—far from it—it is an attempt to simplify the duties that are imposed on the Secretary of State, the Minister, the director and any relevant body when faced with the very large number of people who will be making representations to them.
The difficulty with Clause 8 as it is drafted at the moment is that there is no requirement on the bodies to which the clause applies to discuss with other bodies the carrying out of their duty. There is a mass of expertise around. There are many bodies—some of them funded by government, some completely financially independent—which have things to say on these environmental duties in Clause 8. The authority, the director and the relevant bodies may well be consulting these bodies. It seems to us that it would be desirable to formalise the relationship and to make sure that we do not have a more ad hoc form of consultation which may be different in different parts of the country as different water undertakings see fit to undertake consultation.
We hope that if the Government agree to this amendment, far from it complicating the lives of those who have duties under the clause, it will make their lives simpler. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We believe that there are three reasons why the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should not be accepted. First, the duties touch every aspect of the performance of the undertaker's duties. Given that this is so, the burden of consultation becomes formidable in itself. Secondly, this is rendered even more onerous by the quite prohibitively wide scope of the bodies which it is said should be consulted.
We believe that it is necessary only to read the terms of this amendment to know in one's bones that it is quite unrealistic and impractical. It is a recipe for bureaucratic inertia. However, in asking that the amendment should not be accepted, let me emphasise that we are in no sense opposed to the principle of consultation; indeed quite the reverse. The code of practice strongly emphasises it, but it provides for it in a flexible and selective manner, which is what we suggest that we should do.
We shall look at the drafting of the references in the code to see whether in the light of this evening's debate there is more that we could sensibly add. I hope that that will give the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, some reassurance when I urge him not to press the amendment in the terms in which it is drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened willingly to what the noble Earl has said despite my reservations about the status of the code of practice, which are well known. I think that he is being somewhat unfair to the amendment. It states that apart from the named bodies, the
"any other person, persons, body or association",
is restricted to those who in the opinion of the
492
Secretary of State, the Minister, the director and the relevant bodies are,
"likely to be affected by or as a result of or interested in the exercise by them of any of the aforesaid duties".
Therefore if those persons feel that they wish to restrict it to the bodies named in the amendment, they can do so. There is no obligation on them to do other than to consider representations or objections that are duly made and not withdrawn.
I do not think that the amendment is quite so bad as the noble Earl has said. It was certainly our intention—knowing that these bodies will be making representations to the relevant bodies and to the authorities—to try to formalise the position and to make it easier rather than more complicated. If I am wrong about that, I shall clearly have to think again. In the meantime I shall read carefully what the noble Earl has said. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 121, I must tell the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 122.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 121 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 122 as it may be the only chance I have of doing so. I also understand that we are to discuss Amendment No. 135, which is the new clause in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
I apologise to the Committee for anticipating to a considerable extent these amendments when speaking to Amendments Nos. 105 and 109. I was in error in doing so. It was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, not to refer to my errors, although the two are connected to some extent. Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 are concerned with Clause 8(6)—the curious subsection, as I said at the time, which states:
"Nothing in this section … shall require recreational facilities [to be] made available … free of charge".
I repeat that I do not see any justification for a subsection of that kind. If it appears that other parts of the Bill require that access be free of charge, and it is desired there should be no such requirement, that should be done at the time. If there is no such obligation in any other part of the Bill—I have been unable to find it—it seems unnecessary to have this subsection here.
I want particularly to deal with concern about public access on foot to land owned by water undertakings. I shall cut short my remarks, having already referred to the matter. It seems wrong that there should be a charge for public access on foot when that does not in itself cause the kind of expenditure to a water undertaking which could arise, for example, in providing a car park to permit access to motorists. We are trying to maintain no less favourable access for the public to water authority land than has been obtained in the past.
We would hope that even if charges were made for a car park, which would not be ruled out by our Amendment No. 122, the access to the land itself could be free or charge. We believe that such provision should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: It seems to me that subsection (6) is a positive encouragement to levy a charge. Why on earth it is there I do not know. Why cannot we just leave it out? If it is there, it seems that the authority would be encouraged to charge and I should have thought that a great mistake. No one objects to water authorities charging, as they already do for certain recreational facilities, such as sailing, car parking in certain areas and so on, but to put this subsection into the Bill seems totally unnecessary.
I have read the debate in Committee in another place. I am totally dissatisfied with the response at that time from the Minister, Mr. Michael Howard, for whom I have some respect. It does not seem to me that he answered the question about what happens when the water authority sets up a subsidiary company which is not totally dealing with the land directly connected with the operation of the authority. That is all left to the planning committee or some other body. I do not trust such an arrangement. Nor do the 2,000 ramblers who assembled this weekend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There were 2,451.
Lord Ross of Newport: That is more than I had thought. The position is that people are not yet convinced that the Government are telling the whole truth. They do not believe that it will happen but they think that they may have to leave the issue to local planning authorities of one kind or another.
I suspect that there will be cases where land will be shut off and charges will be made. That is why we have tabled these amendments this evening. I accept the fact, which no doubt will be used in the argument when the Minister responds, that there is overuse of some land in this country by people walking, and so forth, in vast numbers and that they are causing damage. No one objects to it being shut off for a period of time for that reason. I believe that the chairman of the Countryside Commission will agree with that. It has opened up many paths round the country. I happen to live along Offa's Dyke and I know how well it is used. I hope and pray that we shall clarify the position. If water authorities set up subsidiary companies which are not protected by the Bill they can do what they like.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I have a good deal of sympathy with this amendment. But it is a question of the best way in which to fulfil the purpose which the noble Lords have in mind. One way would be to keep subsection (6) in the Bill as it is but to add some words such as:
"unless they were so before the passing of this Act"—
in other words, available free of charge before the passing of this Act. That would be one way of doing it. I believe that to leave out the subsection altogether might be causing uncertainty and leaving too much
494
to chance. I should rather prefer to see it kept with some words added.
So much for the way of dealing with it. Perhaps I have put the cart before the horse. So far as concerns angling, it is generaly although not always a question of the riparian owners allowing people to fish, and not the river authorities. But as regards boating, on most of our rivers small boats can ply to and fro as they please. I believe that larger boats generally have to be licensed on most rivers. It is a matter which I am sure needs to be attended to. When the bone is in the dog's mouth—if that is not a tactless expression to use—it is best to leave it there. For us to try to alter free recreational facilities which already exist would not be at all popular.
The Earl of Caithness: The purpose and effect of Clause 8(6) has been widely misunderstood. And I am sorry to say there have been those outside this Committee who, as often as we have set the record straight, have refused to listen. Clause 8(6) is in fact a technical provision of purely declaratory nature simply making clear that the Clause 8 duties do not require recreational facilities to be made available free of charge. It does not alter the effect of the Bill: it is there purely for clarification. Nor—and this is an important point—does it in any way alter the present position. In practice the only result of exclusion of Clause 8(6) would be to mislead the unwary into a belief that the duties in the Bill required relevant bodies to provide recreational facilities free of charge. I do not believe that is not an outcome Members of the Committee should seek.
However, let me take the opportunity to explain the Government's approach to these matters. To start with I shall set out the present position. The fact is that, in much of their recreational provision, water authorities already levy charges which largely reflect their costs and what the market will bear. Notions of dramatic extension of charges, or dramatic increases in them, after privatisation have little realistic basis.
But what are the principles which should in future determine recreational charges? I suggest the following. First, costs of facilities should be recovered so far as practicable from those making use of them, as our consultation documents have always indicated. Secondly, there will always be some pursuits—informal recreation or rambling—or special circumstances where it is either not reasonable or not practicable to charge. In such circumstances any costs can, as now, be passed on in general charges, since—for instance, in the case of public access—these costs are incurred by the undertakers in pursuit of a statutory duty. I believe the vast majority of people will find such principles perfectly fair and reasonable, and that they should give no one cause for anxiety.
Nor are there grounds for fearing, as many have suggested, a rapid escalation of charges after privatisation. In providing sport and recreation facilities the companies will seldom in any area find themselves in anything like a monopoly situation. Their charges will have to be competitive. In any case guidance in the code of practice makes clear that charges for new facilities should have regard for charges levied for comparable facilities elsewhere.

495
For all these reasons the position on future charging by undertakers for recreation facilities, which Clause 8(6) clarifies, is, I suggest, reasonable and fair, and it is right and proper that such clarification should be on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 135. We had earlier today a full debate on public access to water industry land. For my part I will not rehearse arguments which we have already extensively pursued but concentrate on only one new but critical feature of the amendment before us. This amendment would provide for the public access, free of charge, to all the undertakers' land which is neither operational nor a house or garden.
The essential feature is the qualification that the rights are to apply only in respect of non-operational land, as defined by Section 222 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I must make clear to the Committee that in our view the use of that definition has the effect of narrowing the scope of the right provided by this amendment so greatly as to render it of almost no effect.
The definition includes within operational land not only land being used for carrying on the undertaking but also land in which an interest is held for that purpose. The effect of this is that probably all the catchment lands, the most relevant land from the point of view of public access, would fall outside the scope of the provision. Indeed it is arguable that the right would apply no more widely than to the small amount of surplus land on the Land Register.
No doubt that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, intended but it is the reality. That precisely illustrates one of the reasons why the Government prefer to rely on flexible and discretionary arrangements, backed by general duties, rather than to draw tight legal boundaries in circumstances where this is fraught with difficulty—a point made so well by my noble friend Lord Renton earlier this afternoon. Therefore, this is more than a technical defect. It goes to the heart of the issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the Minister for that restatement of the Government's intention. However, I must say that when he says that the subsection does not alter the Bill and is only there for clarification, and in virtually the same breath complains that it has been widely misunderstood, I wonder whether it is achieving its objective. I do not believe that the misunderstanding is out of ill will or particular stupidity on the part of those suspicious of it. It must surely be failing in its objective to secure clarification.
Indeed, I wonder whether it is proper to have something in the Bill which does not alter the meaning at all. I know that if we in opposition put forward amendments which do not alter the meaning of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, before the Government Front Bench get to us, is the first to say that that is unnecessary and therefore should be resisted. If there is a subsection which does not alter the Bill—and those were the words used by the Minister—I seriously wonder why he so firmly resists the idea that it should be taken out.
496
The suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we should retain free access where it existed before the passing of the Bill sounds attractive in the first instance, but I remind him that water authorities and people concerned with access to water authority land and people concerned with water sports have over the years made more and more agreements to make possible that access.
I see no reason to suppose that that process has come to an end. There is no reason to suppose that there cannot be more water authority land, more water undertaking land, which could not be available for access. One of the many difficulties with privatisation is that with the profit motive coming first, it is likely to bring those negotiations to an end. Therefore, although if necessary I would settle for the suggestion for an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, failing anything else and might consider tabling it on Report, it is not ideal. It does not recognise the considerable improvement that has been made as a result of negotiation with the water authorities.
I now return to the Minister and the subsection which does not alter the Bill. What we need in order to achieve real clarification is an assurance that there will be no diminution in the rights that presently exist for people to walk over land, free of charge, which are now available and that where rents are appropriate—no one is denying that rents are appropriate for water sports, for example—they will not be raised in line with inflation. If the Minister can give those undertakings, the first of which would be in line with the suggestion made by his noble friend, we would be much more disposed to let this matter go and withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure the noble Lord would be much more disposed, but he knows I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks, particularly on the second point. He will be fully aware of the concession made in another place in regard to the water authority land. This is an area of great concern. We have listened with interest to what Members of the Committee have said today and this is one of the many aspects that we should like to brood upon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not familiar with the legislative process of brooding. It is a new thought to me. However, if that is the way that the Minister wants to proceed, I suppose I have no alternative but to let him brood, and I hope that he will lay a rather large and healthy egg.
I do not think I can go further at this stage. I am deeply suspicious of subsections which do not alter Bills and deeply suspicious of the motives of those who include them and then cling on to them. However, the Minister has gone some way in indicating that the matter is not closed and on that basis, and on the basis that I would be willing to assist in his brooding if that is thought to be helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 9, line 5, after first ("undertaker") insert ("(including any subsidiary companies)").
The noble Lord said: I am reminded of a very popular play, "That Happy Brood"; which I believe is appropriate to continue the tenor of the previous debate.
With this series of amendments, Amendments Nos. 124 to 129, we seek clarification from the Minister on the precise extent of the remit which is understood in respect of, so to speak, the prime person or the prime company. The amendments seek to add that the duties and responsibilities under Clause 8 shall be visited on the agents and on the subsidiary companies.
We are satisfied that one of the devices or ploys that could well be used in order to avoid complying with the duties of the Bill will be for the principal plc to create a legal, constitutional device whereby it will be the body responsible for management and not the body upon whom the duty is laid. As a consequence the duties will be avoided. At present the new companies could set up subsidiaries which would avoid having to fulfil their conservation duties. Is that the position? If the Minister can assure us that there is no way in which that kind of device of avoiding responsibilities is capable of being applied then he will satisfy a great many people. In moving this amendment, I also said that I would speak to Amendment No. 126. I do not intend to move that amendment because, on reflection, I shall be seeking not to move it at the appropriate stage because I wish to come back to it later.
That is the gravamen of the argument. I want the Minister to tell me that, when the Committee and the country believe that there are duties laid on the successor bodies to the water authorities, they cannot get out of those responsibilities by passing them on either to a subsidiary or to other bodies. The device is fairly well known. Someone else is given the responsibilities but under the Bill the duties are found very difficult to comply with. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This group of amendments seeks to extend the range of relevant bodies to which the duties in Clause 8 are to apply. Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 would extend the term to any subsidiary companies of an undertaker. At this point I ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, whether he is speaking among this group of amendments to Amendment No. 126.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No. I explained myself badly. I am moving only Amendment No. 124 and speaking to the rest. But I gave an indication that I should not move Amendment No. 126 because I did not wish it to be part of the discussions that are taking place.
The Earl of Arran: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for that explanation. Amendment No.
498
126A would extend the term to a body with responsibility for inland waters. Amendment No. 128 would extend it to agents and Amendment No. 129 would extend it to any successor owners, occupiers or lessees of land currently owned by the water companies.
At present relevant bodies for the purposes of Clause 8 are the NRA and the water and sewerage companies and the internal drainage boards. It is a fact of course that none of these bodies stands in total and splendid isolation from other bodies with which—and this is the case with the NRA—it may share certain functions, or with which—as in the case of the undertakers—it may have certain corporate connections. But, in relation to the Clause 8 duties, lines have to be drawn somewhere and the question is whether they have been drawn in the best place.
I start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who moved these amendments in the name of his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, upon the comprehensiveness of his list. It seems that he may have worked on the principle, "if it moves, hit it". But unfortunately so tenuous is the link that I suspect that few of the bodies will have much idea of what it is that has hit them.
Before commenting on particular amendments I should underline one overriding consideration. Clause 8, as we have emphasised, relates the duties primarily to the performance of functions. Two points follow. First, were we to accept any of these amendments it would have to be on the grounds of the relevance of the functions of the body in question; and, secondly, we must have due regard for the scope of the Bill.
As regards the question of agents I believe that I can bring some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, because all the relevant bodies will themselves be responsible for what is done in their name by their agents. For all practical purposes, therefore, the duties which bite upon the principal extend to his agent. So far, so good, but at this point the noble Lord's aim begins to waver just a little. I quote:
"A body with responsibility for inland waterways".
I understand from what he says that this refers to the British Waterways Board. I take it that the particular formulation put forward reflects the difficulty in bringing the BWB within the scope of the Bill. We have some doubt whether the formulation satisfactorily achieves this. But in any case we have concluded that, while we have some sympathy with the proposer's objective, we do not believe it is appropriate to pursue it at this stage.
The first reason is that the BWB is already subject to substantially similar duties to those in Clause 8 under other legislation so that the need for the amendment is marginal. The second is that we doubt whether we should apply it to the BWB without extending it to all other navigation authorities. But we do not consider that that should be done except in the context of some wider review of navigation law.
As for subsidiary companies and successor owners, I believe I have dealt with them earlier. However, I

499
shall repeat the key points. To extend the duties to them would be wholly misconceived. The Clause 8 duties bite upon the functions of water bodies, which as we recognise by their nature have profound implications for the environment. But a subsidiary or associated company of a water or sewerage undertaker will not by definition be carrying out the appropriate functions because they are for the appointed company itself. Necessarily it will be pursuing quite different activities to which the Clause 8 duties may have only tenuous connection or no connection at all.
The same considerations apply with even greater force in respect of successor bodies to which the land allocated under schemes under Schedule 2 might pass. The fact is that the great majority of the duties apply in respect of functions, and should so apply, and it is most unlikely that any successor owner would share the functions of the relevant bodies.
I emphasise again, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has already mentioned, that we would hope that an amendment to deal with long-term protection of environmentally important areas would go far to allay the concern underlying this proposal. I conclude that while some amendments in this group are inappropriate, others are already achieved or intended. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will feel it appropriate not to press the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not for the first time tonight the Minister has given a full explanation for which I am grateful and which I shall need to read carefully. In his final words he gave an adequate summary of what he was telling me and those outside the Chamber. He said that some of the amendments are not appropriate and others are unnecessary because they are covered by existing arrangements. Perhaps I may read to the noble Earl part of a letter that was sent in January by Mr. Lloyd of the department to Mrs. Kemp, the chairman of the Thames Regional Recreation and Conservation Consultative Committee. It says:
"These statutory duties will only apply to the PLC core business since it would be impossible to justify a blanket extension to the subsidiary companies, given that these companies may be no different from other private companies wholly unconnected with the PLC. It is because the duties will be restricted to the core business that it has proved possible to model them directly on the strong and effective conservation and recreation duties which currently bind the water authorities and to provide for an entirely new statutory Code of Practice giving detailed guidance on the performance of the duties".
I can well understand why the Minister tells us that this relates to the functions. However, if the duty relates to the functions and in the first instance the duties are laid upon the successor company—whatever happens to these subsidiary companies and however the subsequent business is carved up, sold off or changes ownership—who will continue to be responsible for observing that the duties are carried out? If there is a simple way to understand that I shall be most grateful to hear it. However, at present I am at a loss. I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions for a moment. He is certainly not treating
500
the matter in a cavalier way; he is not saying that such duties can be sloughed off by anyone. But I should like him to tell us that he is satisfied that there will always be someone who will be responsible.
The question is: once the successor body to the water authorities decides in its own wisdom—it may be deliberate and we think that there may be such cases, although it may be otherwise—to, so to speak, get out of the business which it is in, does the duty then go with the function? I believe that that was what the Minister was referring to, and indeed that may be the answer. However, can the Minister tell us a little more about whether there will be a continuing liability, and upon whom such a liability will rest, to carry out the duties to observe the code of practice and any other responsibilities?
The Earl of Arran: Very simply, as I understand it, the functions will relate only to the operation lands; that is how it will stand.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that the Minister said that the duties will apply "only to the operation land" and that is how it stands. That does not seem to me to be an adequate arrangement. If in actual fact the ownership of the operation of land changes, is the Minister saying that the duties to observe the responsibilities will also change? We do not want to find a situation in which either by a sleight of hand or anything else the law is not being complied with, conservation is not being dealt with and so on. The Minister must understand that I am not trying to score points or find holes at which to work. I genuinely want him to tell us how the provisions of the Bill will ensure that there is a continuing liability to fulfil the duties by whoever is carrying out the functions on the land. How will this be done?
The Earl of Arran: The provision is as contained in the Bill at present. As I understand it, the director general will require the water authority to receive assets to carry out its duties.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that the Minister said, "receive assets to carry out its duties". I say with great respect to Members of the Committee who are listening, those words do not answer the question. The question was: how do you ensure that the duties under Clause 8 will continue to be exercised by whoever is using the land, whether it is a successor owner, an agent or a subsidiary company? How will that be done?
The Earl of Arran: As I said before, and I shall repeat it again, the core company must discharge the functions given to it by virtue of the provisions in the Bill. Conservation duties apply to whoever discharges the functions, irrespective of ownership of the land.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That means that whatever the core business does with its land, whether it leases it or creates subsidiary companies, the responsibility for carrying out the duties remains with the original owners. Is that correct? Does it remain with them? If it does not remain with them, how do we ensure that it is transferred? That is what I should like the Minister to tell the Committee.
The Earl of Arran: I think that I can assure the noble Lord that he is correct on that point.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister says that I am correct, but I have not put forward a proposition. From a sitting position, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, tells me that I have. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow.
I am asking the Minister to tell us how it is possible to ensure that the duties laid down under the Act are of a continuing nature if the original core business decides to create subsidiaries, holding companies, or to sell. How is it done? If the Minister is saying that I am correct, that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that that happens—The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, shakes his head. I am not bothered who gives me the answer. Three or four people are getting in on the act.
Lord Trafford: I shook my head, because it seems to me that there is a confusion. If one is an owner of land with certain claims on that land, and others have certain duties and rights on that land, and one sells the land, the existing duties and rights do not necessarily change. That is the first point.
The second point is that the amendment refers to subsidiary ompanies. It is the parent company which is responsible ultimately for what subsidiary companies do. That is the meaning of the word "subsidiary". With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I do not believe that there is a problem with regard to understanding how subsidiary companies might behave. The point to which he refers in the amendment is nevertheless present and I should have thought clear-cut. I take his point with regard to changes of ownership, but changes of ownership also carry with them certain rights which one cannot abrogate easily in law. I believe that that is what my noble friend the Minister is telling us is the answer to the question.
The Earl of Arran: I wonder whether I may repeat what I have said. The core company must discharge the functions given it in the Bill. The director general requires that the core companies have the assets.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The core company has the assets. I must confess my ignorance. I do not understand what that means in this context. Was the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, going to help me?
Lord Trafford: I was not going to help. I was going to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the rather simpler interpretation in the use of these terms which I have just given was accurate or inaccurate, because it seemed to me that we are saying the same thing but using different words.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is my last contribution. I understand the difficulty. The hour is late. We need to be clear. All that I want to be understood is that at any given moment someone is responsible for ensuring that the duties laid down under the Act are being exercised. Whether it is by a core company, a subsidiary or someone else, I want
502
to be sure that those duties are being carried out. I believe that we have gone as far as we can tonight. The Minister is genuinely trying to be helpful. It may be that at this late hour I am incapable of assimilating what he has told me, which may well make sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 129 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Gibson Lord Gibson moved Amendment No. 129A:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:

("Non-functional land and disposals.

.—(1) Any company nominated as a water authority's successor company shall have a duty to consult the appropriate agencies, as determined by the Secretary of State, in order—

(a) to ensure the conservation, enhancement or protection of the natural beauty or special interest of land held by such a company which is no longer required by that company for the purposes of its functions; or

(b) to determine, within a period of 28 days, the competent body to which land shall be offered for sale where such a company seeks to dispose of any area of land.

(2) The land to which subsection (1) refers means any area of land or water which—

(a) is situated in a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty or which is a site of special scientific interest; or

(b) is designated by order made by statutory instrument for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, by reason of its national importance for its natural beauty, flora, fauna, geological, physiographical or landscape features, or features of archaeological or historical interest.

(3) The offer of land to a competent body made under subsection (1) shall—

(a) be at a price to be determined by the district valuer which shall be assessed as though the only use authorised to be made of the land was the type and intensity of use current at the making of the offer; and

(b) shall remain effective for a period of 6 months.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) the agencies are the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and, in the case of Wales, Cadw;

(b) the competent bodies are those included in a list issued by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the agencies in (a) above.").

The noble Lord said: At this late hour I shall be as quick as I can. The amendment, though simple, needs explaining. It has a strictly limited purpose. If agreed, it would provide a way—perhaps the best and simplest way—to provide for the future protection and management in the public interest of areas of land owned by the existing water authorities but which happen also to be of national importance, scenically, scientifically or historically.
I hope that the amendment will be looked upon with favour by the Minister as a special and particular measure of the kind that he had in mind when he spoke in Committee last week of the Government's readiness to adopt one of a range of positive ways of protecting what he called those countryside areas of special conservation and amenity value.
The amendment has been drafted by the National Trust, of which I was chairman for a good many years. It has a formidable body of support from

503
national conservation organisations such as the CPRE, the RSPB, the Council for National Parks, the National Parks Officers Association and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation.
I think I should say at this point that the National Trust normally aims to achieve its objectives through the ownership and management of its properties and rarely involves itself in trying to influence legislation unless one of its properties is directly affected. But the Bill has far-reaching implications for some of the finest landscape in the country and exceptionally the trust thought it right to try to secure adequate protection for it.
In drawing up the amendment we have also relied on the help and guidance of the Countryside Commission whose point of view will be known through the briefing notes it has circulated to the Committee. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the protection for land owned by the water companies but no longer needed for water services if it happened also to be situated in a national park, an AONB, an SSSI of first grade or indeed an area identified by the Secretary of State as being of national importance for any of the reasons specified in the amendment.
Some Members of the Committee may wonder why it should be necessary or even right to legislate to protect land, however important, simply because it is water authority land. Why treat it differently from land in any other ownership? The difference is that water company land is already specially protected in respect of conservation, recreation and access by legislation and by various agreements. We wish to see that protection continued if the land is sold and, if possible, enhanced in places where public access is creating management problems and opportunities. The difference between the scale of public enjoyment on water authority land and privately owned land is considerable.
The amendment would require water companies wishing to sell land to give certain conservation bodies first refusal of such land. Six months would be allowed for the conservation bodies to find the purchase price. If they failed to find it then the land would be free to be sold on the open market.
More precisely, the water companies would first have to consult the Countryside Commission in cases of scenic beauty, the Nature Conservancy Council in cases of scientific importance, or the HBMC, or in Wales, CADW, in cases of historic interest. The appropriate one of these agencies would then determine whether the land was of national importance in any of these respects.
It is worth mentioning, I think, that this is a function which these agencies already perform under the "in lieu" procedure of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. If they say that the land in question is of such quality, that land would first have to be offered to a responsible conservation body, referred to in the amendment as "a competent body". A list would be drawn up by the Secretary of State which, I imagine, would include such bodies as the National Trust, the RSPB, national parks and so on. But that would be a matter for the Secretary of State.
The body chosen would then be given the opportunity to acquire the land at the district valuer's valuation before it could be sold on the open market. This value should be the district valuer's estimate of the existing use value of the land and not of its development potential. I think Members of the Committee will agree that that is logical. After all, no one who argues that planning controls are adequate to prevent development in such areas could also argue that development potential should be reflected in the valuation. If, after six months, the conservation body in question had not assembled the resources to purchase the land at that valuation, the land could be freely sold. I understand that such an arrangement, although not statutory, already operates in respect of land disposals by the Forestry Commission. So the amendment would give certain conservation bodies a reasonable chance of acquiring areas of national importance—I stress that they would have to be genuinely of national importance—which might otherwise be sold with no protection other than that of planning controls. That is the heart of the matter. Until the Minister last Tuesday gave us a ray of hope—rather more than a ray, I hope I am right in saying—the reaction of the Government had been that the planning system must be relied upon to protect areas which need protecting. As the Committee has frequently been reminded, the water companies own a great deal of land between them—over 450,000 acres—mostly in water catchment areas, some of it of great beauty. So far as I know, they manage it very well and public access is provided either under statutory rights or through arrangements with local planning authorities. Examples are the Elan Valley in mid-Wales, Thirlmere and Haweswater in the Lake District and the High Peak catchment in the Peak District National Park.
In deciding whether they need all this land, the water companies will certainly have more incentive in future than in the past to look critically at what they need and what they can dispose of. They will need all the resources they can muster to modernise their sewerage systems and to meet improved health criteria. Therefore, they may well decide to sell land they do not need.
Furthermore, after privatisation, they will be failing in their duty to shareholders if they hang on to assets not needed for their core business or fail to develop them for other businesses which they may operate or invest in. It has been said that there is no significant surplus of land which is not needed by the companies for water. Nevertheless, a recent example of land which apparently did not need to be owned by the authority concerned was the Elan Valley estate in mid-Wales. That was offered in 1986 to environmental bodies. However, no agreement was reached. After privatisation it may well be offered for sale again. This time it would be offered on the open market, and it may be fragmented by the sale of separate lots to maximise its value. That is an example where, even if planning controls could be relied upon to prevent inappropriate development, they would be inadequate to protect the valley. It is of such beauty that it should be managed for public enjoyment as well as for water.
That is what happens now. It is managed as a whole, and that should continue.
Planning controls can only be negative, even when they are effective. In such an area as the Elan Valley sensitive management for public benefit is what is required. There are not so many such areas in our country that we can afford to let any of them deteriorate. That is why the amendment also envisages that the agencies already mentioned should be consulted about the management of any land the water companies want to retain but which they say they do not need for water purposes. That could perhaps be achieved by management agreements, as already occurs in other contexts.
However, quite apart from the positive benefits of unified and consistent management, even in places where such benefits are not so necessary, is the planning system a reliable form of protection, even negatively? In the experience of the conservation bodies supporting this amendment, it is not. Already in these debates we have been told that something like one-third of planning applications which are dismissed by planning authorities are successful on appeal. Even in designated areas where one would think that more stringent criteria were applied, the figure is almost the same. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, who mentioned a statistic last week which I cannot resist repeating. He said that last year in the Lake District no less than 45 per cent. of planning applications which were turned down by the planning authorities were successful on appeal. It is simply no good thinking in terms of planning controls being adequate. I believe the Government no longer consider they are adequate. I hope that is the case.
Even if the planning system, which faces increasingly difficult and severe pressures, could be relied upon, there are many small developments which fall outside the net of planning regulations but which in really beautiful areas—I am speaking only of the really beautiful areas—can cumulatively still be inappropriate and damaging. I refer to certain types of afforestation, certain changes in agricultural practice and some kinds of recreational development.
Moreover, there is no statutory basis for rights of way and other provision for visitors as have been agreed between local authorities and water authorities. With privatisation ahead of them, water authorities are understandably not keen to see those rights given permanent protection, thus reducing the market value of their land. They will need to maximise their resources and naturally they want to keep their options open. But where their options include selling off areas of national importance with minimum protection in order to maximise the sale price, the public interest requires that that particular option be closed. That is what this amendment principally seeks to ensure. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, referred to the obligations of directors of the new plcs under what is in effect an equity regime. We can, I am sure, be confident that the initial managements of these plcs will be scrupulous in the discharge of their responsibilities both to the
506
environment and to their shareholders. However, a plc and its management is an evolving body, and the present managements will be succeeded by others. Therefore, we must safeguard against the possibility that in the future, perhaps many years ahead, there may be the odd board of directors of a water plc that may be less mindful of its obligations in respect of heritage lands and that may be tempted by the profit motive. It is against that possibility, particularly in the medium and longer term, that the modest proposals contained in this amendment are such a valuable safeguard.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: I support the amendment. I have an interest, in as much as I have been involved in the work of the National Trust for many years. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, the National Trust has a natural interest in the conservation problem of surplus lands.
Last week the Minister acknowledged that,
"the water industry owns…land…of quite outstanding beauty and environmental importance… It remains the Government's view that our planning and countryside legislation can deal with the great majority of risks".—[Official Report, 2/5/89; col. 33.]
His words were obviously carefully chosen, and in some measure I would go along with them. I shudder to think what it would be like today in my part of the world, the Lake District, without the existing legislation. It may well be that the Minister is right in asserting that the planning legislation can deal with the great majority of the risks. However, that is surely not good enough, for it is equally clear, and is in no way inconsistent with that statement, that there have been many problems that planning procedures have not managed to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has given some examples.
The planning procedures and the appeals system have not been sufficient to stand up to the pressures. As has been said, they are not designed to deal with certain types of good conservation practice. I should like to think that that is common ground, and it is in that expectation that I shall not elaborate the point at this late hour, because there is enough evidence to fill a whole volume of Hansard with examples.
In my view there is only one form of protection which is adequate; outright ownership of such surplus land by a reasonable conservation body, that is to say the ownership of the freehold. I say that from long experience at the National Trust. To take one example which has already been referred to this afternoon, namely the use of covenants as a protective mechanism instead of outright ownership, our experience in the trust has been on the whole extremely unsatisfactory. Covenants are not strong enough to serve as a proper protective device.
I believe that the Minister agrees that the planning legislation does not always give satisfactory results. I recognise that we may differ on what constitutes a satisfactory result, but that is a matter of opinion on which views can reasonably differ. What is needed and what the amendment seeks to provide is a mechanism to deal with or to reconcile such differences in a reasonable and balanced manner. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept that

507
any mechanism must include a procedure for the purchase of land, for the reasons I have indicated, by a responsible body. It has to be a reasonable procedure and a responsible procedure, and I believe that the amendment achieves that.
What we have proposed is similar to the procedure and rationale in Clause 9 for cases where schemes and works are proposed, although in this amendment we are concerned with land surplus to requirements. The end point in the case of the disposal of non-functional land must go beyond mere consultation or good intentions. It must lead to the option to purchase by a competent body.
It is worth reiterating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that there are many similarities with the in lieu provisions of the Inheritance Act which in our experience at the trust have worked quite well on most occasions. However both the amendment and the in lieu procedures operate on the basis of existing use valuation by the district valuer. That seems to me to be a sensible, fair and equitable basis for land in a national park or AONB, that is to say that there should not be a development profit. If there is, it means that the character of the land will be changed.
The arrangements proposed in the amendment are not Draconian. They are quite narrowly drawn so that they do not suffer from the sort of objections from which similar amendments that we have discussed earlier today have suffered. They include necessary checks and balances by introducing the concept of an independent determination, and they reduce uncertainty. They enable land of outstanding landscape quality to be preserved for the nation. We in the trust are not in the business of empire building. We already have quite enough to do managing and funding our estate without seeking more responsibilities unless they concern land under threat.
We do not criticise or seek to knock the new plcs. It is simply that their objectives are, quite properly, commercial objectives while our objectives are those of national conservation. It is sensible to put in place arrangements to reconcile those possible conflicts. That is what the amendment seeks to do and I hope that the Government will recognise the logic of the argument.
Baroness Blatch: Given that the sites of special scientific interest are already protected under Section 128 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is it necessary to include them in subsection 2(a) of this amendment?
Baroness Nicol: In supporting the amendment, I shall try not to repeat so much that has been said which I endorse. However, I should like to say that I believe that an important part of the amendment is subsection 2(b). That subsection gives an opportunity for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, to give protection to land which falls outside the popular designations. That provision is badly needed in the Bill. It would allow proper consideration to be given to continuing sympathetic management once the
508
duties of the Water Bill no longer apply and it would give conservation bodies an opportunity to consider acquisition where appropriate.
As has been said, Ministers are inclined to tell us to rely on the planning system to protect existing access or conservation interests, but planning controls are under constant threat. I understand that yet another White Paper on local plans is circulating at this moment. One must question what the outcome of that exercise will be. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, there are certain operations which are or could be damaging in conservation terms, such as forestry and certain recreational activities which do not require planning permission in any case.
I believe that the provisions of the amendment would go a long way to relieving a great deal of public anxiety about the future of some of the most precious parts, not just of national parks, but of our landscape generally, which remains at the moment singularly unprotected. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic in that respect.
Lord Winstanley: As noble Lords may have noticed, I have in general participated in the proceedings on the Bill from afar rather than in the Chamber. By that, I mean that I have read the proceedings with the greatest of care. I have read over and over again the highly predictable and totally negative replies of the Government to amendment after amendment, but I honestly believed that, on this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, we might perhaps receive a somewhat different reply from those that we have received in respect of other amendments. The argument is utterly compelling. The amendment is reasonably and carefully worded. I cannot see that it presents any possible disadvantages.
As the noble Earl well knows, very many of the land holdings of the water authorities are in designated areas of the countryside—in national parks, in areas of outstanding natural beauty and in other areas which are administered in part by the Nature Conservancy Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, knows that I live up in the Lake District National Park. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that sites of special scientific interest were wholly protected by the planning laws, but they are not. Time and time again when a development in the Lake District is refused by the Lake District special planning board the refusal is overturned by the Minister on appeal. I do not rest much confidence in that system.
We should remember that often these land holdings in unusual and sensitive areas of countryside are in areas where land is owned by the water authority almost adjacent to land owned by the National Trust. That certainly happens in the Lake District where side by side they are landlords. If and when surplus land owned at present by the North West Water Authority becomes available in the Lake District National Park, one would like to see the National Trust have an opportunity to acquire it and to add it to its existing land holdings in that national park which it administers so carefully and so well in the national interest.

509
I hope that we shall hear a different reply. I have already expressed in your Lordships' House my surprise that the Government should decide to try to steamroller two great professions, the law and the doctors, at one and the same time. I did not honestly believe that the Government would also wish to take on the National Trust, along with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and other conservation and countryside bodies, who are wholly united on this amendment. These are, on the whole, representative of people for whom the Government and the noble Earl's department have a great respect and with whom he and his department work closely. I hope that we shall receive a much more sympathetic and perhaps less predictable reply to this amendment than we have had to so many others.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Committee should appreciate that our planning authorities are under enormous pressure at this time. Many of the planning officers I know—and I have been practising in the business for some time—would quite like to retire early. They have lost large numbers of their staff to the private sector because the money available has been far more than the local authorities have been able to provide. Trying to fill some of those jobs has been very difficult, certainly in my part of the world.
There is pressure to give quick decisions; there is far too much political interference. The whole system has been breaking down. Therefore, to depend purely on the planning aspect of protecting land just is not on. I have great respect for the chief planning officers in most parts of the country. I think they would agree with me when I say that they are disillusioned and that they have been under tremendous pressure. There is great pressure upon them to give decisions, and often their recommendations are disavowed by the sitting members. It is a sad fact, but that is the case.
Secondly, there must be hundreds of cases now of SSSIs being overturned on planning permissions. It is a great thing in the voluntary bodies that planning consents override SSSIs. It is a sad fact of life.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not often take strong issue with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but I really was very upset by what he said. The noble Lord obviously has not taken an active part in your Lordships' Committee. I think he has misunderstood what has been appearing in the Official Report. We have gone out of our way on many more than one occasion to try to be helpful and to take away amendments for further consideration. To say that we have been totally negative in respect of amendment after amendment is a travesty of justice when one considers what has happened to the Bill in three days of Committee.
In the light of what I said on the first day of the Committee last week—perhaps the noble Lord ought to read my remarks—and today, I hope the Committee will understand that I am not today in a position to offer a final view on the amendment before us. Let me begin, however, by offering it a general, if qualified, welcome. It addresses an issue we are at one in wishing to resolve—the need to
510
secure long-term protection for sites in water industry ownership which are of exceptional environmental value and which have features which our general legislation might not be able fully to protect in the event of a disposal by a successor body. And it does so in a positive and constructive manner. But the Committee will understand that I shall wish to consider the amendment carefully with the other options that have been put forward.
It would however be right of me at this stage to note certain reservations. First, the inclusion of SSSIs within the terms of the amendment Will, I believe, raise difficulties, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has already noted. It is not clear to us that this would be justified or appropriate given the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Acts which already make provision for safeguarding such areas where required.
Secondly, I have a doubt about the basis of valuation. An open market valuation is more normal in measures of this kind. I am surprised that the movers of the amendment feel that the procedure would not have to allow for the rights, under Crichel Down, of previous owners, where the valuation basis is different. A different valuation basis need not, I believe, jeopardise the proposals, but could avoid consequential difficulties.
Thirdly, I shall want to consider particularly carefully the first limb of the proposal in respect of surplus land where there is not already a sale proposed. The suggestion may be a helpful one but we need to consider its implications.
I do not enter these reservations in any unconstructive or negative spirit. Nor are they central to the purposes of the amendment. In taking the proposal away for further consideration, I emphasise that while there are features which we feel may go a little too far in certain directions we also feel there may be other mechanisms which could be brought into play to add further to the overall effectiveness and flexibility of the measure.
We must clearly weigh this approach alongside others which have been proposed and others which we are considering. But I assure the movers of the amendment that we shall do this in the positive spirit in which the amendment has been put forward and with, I believe, no disagreement among us as to the end which should be secured.
I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I cannot agree that the only people qualified to look after land are competent bodies. There are many private owners in this country who own and manage some of the most beautiful and attractive land in the country. If the noble Lord takes his thoughts to their ultimate conclusion, those private landowners must forfeit their land forthwith to the competent bodies that the noble Lord wishes. I am sure that that would not be in the interests of maintaining the beautiful countryside that we were lucky enough to inherit and which we shall ensure passes on to our grandchildren.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, are content for me to take the amendment away for further consideration, I shall undertake that we will come back with a firm

511
proposal in time for them to consider it fully before Report stage. If they should then feel that we have not done full justice to the issue and the occasion, there will be an opportunity for them to put this amendment back to the House for a decision.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Gibson: I am very much encouraged by the Minister's reply. In the circumstances, perhaps I may be allowed to express my gratitude for the support that the amendment has received. On the basis that we have plenty of time to consider this—an assurance that the Minister has already given—so that if we feel it does not go far enough to meet our concerns we can come back to the question, as I know the Minister intends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): Perhaps I may point out that if Amendment No. 130 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 131.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(1A) Where a National Park authority or the Broads Authority is of the opinion that any area of land in a National Park or in the Broads—

(a) is land in relation to which the matters for the purposes of which section 8 above has effect are of particular importance; and

(b) may at any time be affected by schemes, works, operations or activities of a relevant body or by an authorisation given by the Authority,

the National Park authority or Broads Authority shall notify the fact that the land is such land, and the reasons why those matters are of particular importance in relation to the land, to every relevant body whose works, operations or activities may affect the land or, as the case may be, to the Authority.
(2) Where a relevant body has received a notification under subsection (1) or (1A) above with respect to any land, that body shall consult the notifying body before carrying out, or (in the case of the Authority) carrying out or authorising, any works, operations or activities which appear to that relevant body to be likely—

(a) to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; or

(b) significantly to prejudice anything the importance of which is one of the reasons why the matters mentioned in subsection (1A) above are of particular importance in relation to that land.").

The noble Lord said: The three amendments in this group are technical amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I ought to
mention that I am a member of the Broads Authority and that I sit on the environment committee of that authority. I should like to draw to the attention of my noble friend two points which have come up and are of general concern in the Broads Authority, although I am not speaking on behalf of the Broads Authority.
First, I assume that under subsection (1A), at line 2, "in the Broads" means within the bounds of the
512
Broads Authority itself as defined. But that throws us back on Clause 8, where there is this curious phrase that I might have mentioned earlier of land "associated with such waters". One of the anxieties in the environment committee of the Broads Authority is that things can happen on waters which drain into the broads which are right outside the bounds of the authority. Some thought may be needed on behalf of the Government to define more clearly land associated with waters, in particular when the land—the catchment area of waters—is outside the authority which is affected. This is a point of issue to which I should like to draw my noble friend's attention.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard the noble Lord say that these are technical amendments. They are three large amendments—one is significant in quantity—and they raise issues of considerable importance. I am sorry that they are raised at ten to eleven at night, but even so I do not think we can allow the Government to get away with passing over them just like that.
Clause 9 deals with sites of special scientific interest—not in the SSSI sense, but in a more general sense—which may be notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as being of special concern. It purports to give some further protection to these sites in terms of the duties under Clause 8. The amendments seek to add the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority to the Nature Conservancy Council in relation to those protections.
The first question which must be asked is why any of these amendments should be in Clause 9 rather than in Clause 8, because the duties with which the protection is supposed to be concerned are in Clause 8. Clause 9 is significantly weaker in a number of respects, to which I have to draw the Committee's attention.
The first respect in which the amendment is weaker than it should be is that it invites the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority to designate certain sites as being of particular importance. What is meant by "of particular importance"? Does that mean that in terms of protection we now have a three-tier system: a system whereby there are sites of particular importance in national park areas; sites not of importance but still in national park areas; and sites outside the national park areas? The latter two types of land do not have the protection supposed to be afforded by the legislation. Such a three-tier system was attempted by the Sandford Committee in 1974 and was rejected because all those concerned felt that it was unsatisfactory and the protection which it purported to give was not good enough.
The second weakness of the amendment and Clause 9 is that all that is required is a notification procedure. Indeed, there is not even a prior notification procedure, unless the scheme of a water undertaking is likely to destroy or damage or prejudice the importance of the flora and fauna, and so on, at risk. There is no definition of what is meant by "destroy" or "damage". There is no definition of

513
what is meant by "significantly to prejudice". There is no real protection in the words at all. Even if there were, that is overriden by subsection (3), which deals with what happens in an emergency. In an emergency the plc goes ahead and does the damage and notifies afterwards. Again, that is hardly an effective protection.
These are poor amendments to a very poor clause. If there is any significance in these sites the duties ought to be transferred to Clause 8 rather than be inserted into Clause 9. I believe it is deeply unsatisfactory that they should be introduced at all and particularly unfortunate that they should be introduced in this cavalier way by being described as technical amendments.
Baroness Nicol: I reinforce what my noble friend has said. I hope that the Minister has been provided with a somewhat longer brief than the one he used to introduce the amendments because I believe he will need it. I should like to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend in relation to the dangers of creating three-tier landscapes. I cannot see what relationship the amendment, as a technical amendment, bears to the Bill as it stands. We need a great deal more explanation of how national parks and the Broads Authority are fitted in almost as an afterthought. There is the question of what happens to land within the national parks, which is divided into two grades, and to land outside the national parks, which is presumably degraded completely and can therefore be "up for grabs" as and when required.
According to the amendment, all that is required is that:
"a relevant body … shall consult the notifying body before carrying out, or (in the case of the Authority) carrying out or authorising, any works",
and so forth. There are then the details of what presumably was meant to be avoided. But there is nothing of how to do that in the amendment. According to that all the body has to do is notify the authority—and then what? Can we be told what sanction is to be applied if its proposals are not satisfactory?
The way in which the amendment has been presented is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a better winding up speech than he did on opening.
Lord Hesketh: I never like to be thought
of as taking advantage of your Lordships. I thought that as the time was nearly five minutes to eleven it was convenient to be brief. I did so only for the convenience of the Committee.
One of the matters to which in recent months we have sought to give particular attention is the relationship, after enactment of the Bill, between the successor bodies and the national park authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in Thirlmere at Easter and my honourable friend the Minister of State on Dartmoor more recently.
In debate in another place it was pressed upon us that over the years, partly because of the particular character of water industry functions, partly because of the special duties which have for some years
514
attached to their performance, the water industry has become the best ally of the national parks in the pursuit of many common objectives.
We believe that the duties in Clause 8 and the terms of the code of practice will do much to ensure that this relationship continues, as the Government intend that it shall. But we accept that we ought to do what we can to ensure that there is an effective procedural framework in place for consultation and co-operation.
In another place we therefore agreed to consider what we could do to this end, and in particular we took away a proposal put forward with the support of the council for the national parks. The outcome the Committee sees before it. It closely follows the terms of the amendment put forward in another place and I s
commend it to the Committee's consideration.
The essence of the amendment is to provide that the park authorities may notify to the relevant bodies areas of the parks which they regard as of particular importance in relation to the general environmental duties in Clause 8 and the reasons why they so regard them. The relevant bodies will then be under a statutory obligation to consult the park authorities when any of their decisions or operations are likely significantly to affect those areas.
There are a number of comments I should perhaps add. First, I am bound to say that the terms of the amendment, at least in subsection (2)(b), are not the most translucent. The link there with Clause 8 is difficult in drafting terms— —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the Minister explain what he means by the word "translucent"? I believe that it means seeing light through but nothing in particular; not giving a clear image. Is that what the Minister means?
Lord Hesketh: I believe that "translucent" means "clear", so when I say that the terms are not the most clear— —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The word "transparent" means "clear".
Lord Hesketh: The link there with Clause 8 is difficult in drafting terms but it is important because it jointly secures the effect we desire—that all the purposes of Clause 8 come within the scope of the procedure proposed.
Secondly, the test as to when operations will have significant effects and therefore require consultation is a subjective one to be judged by the relevant bodies. We think this is inescapable, not least because an objective test would leave the plcs unfairly at risk if unforeseen damaging outcomes did occur. That cannot be right. There is protection for the public interest, however, in that, were the utilities to take an unreasonably narrow approach, the Secretary of State could always incorporate guidelines in the code of practice, which covers Clause 9 as well as Clause 8.
Finally I must say a word about the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that

515
this amendment is to be deplored because it creates a possible two- or even three-tier system which will be damaging to those areas not notified. But, if we were unable to accord a sensible order of priority to certain areas and to have special measures for them where should we be? On that logic we should not have national parks at all. We believe that that argument is destructive. In any case, the answer is that the initiative lies with the national parks authorities themselves. They can notify as many or as few areas as they consider they can properly justify.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt that these amendments should have gone into Clause 8 rather than Clause 9. However, I should remind the Committee that Clause 9 deals with special local arrangements, which is what we are discussing here, while Clause 8 deals with general duties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked who suggested that the Broads should be incorporated. That occurred after consultation with the Countryside Commission.
I commend the measure to the Committee as being positive rather than destructive. It will help to ensure continuing close collaboration between the national parks and the water industry to ensure that they remain allies in the future as they have been in the past. In preparing this, we have taken full account of the proposals of the Council for National Parks and other bodies most concerned.
11 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: It was not my intention to question the position of the Broads. I am sorry if I was misunderstood. I am well aware of the relationship of the Broads Authority to the national parks and I would not have questioned that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the matter is put, I shall not detain the Committee now but in view of the fact that we have had this debate back to front, with the Minister only explaining what the amendments mean after the debate has taken place, it is only fair to say that we may wish to come back to this at a later stage.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the Committee will permit me to ask a question at this late stage. If this amendment means that the national park authorities and the Broads Authority would be allowed to give notification in respect of all land in their area, is that what is intended or even desirable?
Lord Hesketh: I believe it means that they can "prioritise".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) Any dispute between the Nature Conservancy Council and the Authority or other relevant body as to whether any such works, operations or activities should be carried out on that land or as to the manner in which they should be executed shall be determined in the prescribed manner by the Secretary of State.
516
(4) Any person who, knowing that any works, operations or activities are or are likely to be the subject of a determination by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above, without reasonable excuse carries out such works, operations or activities before the Secretary of State has issued his determination shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on indictment to a fine.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment sets up an arbitration procedure involving the Secretary of State in disputes concerning sites of special scientific interest as between the Nature Conservancy Council and the NRA. The context is the provisions of Clause 9 which provide that where the Nature Conservancy Council considers an area of land to be of special scientific interest, it shall notify the fact to the NRA. Thereafter, the NRA or a water plc, where it intends to carry out works on the land which appears to that body to be likely to destroy or damage flora or fauna, shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council. In other words, the decision as to whether to consult is for the body carrying out the work. We referred to that briefly in a previous amendment.
The provisions of the clause have been criticised as including too weak a protection in respect of such sites that may well be identified by the Nature Conservancy Council but then receive almost no protection, given the discretion that may be exercised by the NRA or by a plc. Amendment No. 132 seeks to deal with the situation where there is no agreement as to whether works should be carried out. The most likely scenario is where the NCC has identified a site and comes to hear of proposed works of which it has not been notified by the NRA or by the water company. The amendment provides for the Secretary of State to determine the outcome.
It further provides that anyone who, knowing of any reference to arbitration or the possibility of it by the Secretary of State, carries out work or activities before the determination is guilty of an offence. This is intended to deal with the situation where either an arbitration is pending or even where works are proceeding and the NCC has lodged an appeal for arbitration. The effect of this amendment would be to freeze the work at that stage, pending the decision of the Secretary of State.
I suggest to the Committee that this amendment is important in view of the weakness of Clause 9. That weakness is compounded in subsection (3), which allows emergency work to be undertaken without prior notification, provided the Nature Conservancy Council is notified as soon as practicable afterwards. Sites of special scientific interest are of proven importance in the conservation and development of flora, fauna and other natural features and the Bill seems at best grudging in its level of protection for them. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 9 provides a special procedure, tailored to the circumstances of the water industry, whereby the Nature Conservancy Council can notify SSSIs to the relevant water bodies and be consulted on any action by those bodies which seems likely to damage or destroy relevant features of the site. The point to note is that the SSSI procedure already provides means of dealing, through management agreements, with any disputes. This

517
procedure would cut across those arrangements in a manner which we do not feel could be justified. It is for those reasons that we wish to resist the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I listened intently to the Minister but I do not think I received a real answer. I think that the Minister was saying that he believes the present arrangements are satisfactory. On the face of it, that is not what I read into the Bill or other people outside this Committee read into it. However, the hour is late and I withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that I shall certainly raise it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 9, line 28, after ("Council") insert (", the National Park authority in question or, as the case may be, the Broads Authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 9, line 30, after first ("section") insert—

(" "the Broads" has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988;

"National Park authority" means a National Park Committee or a joint or special planning board for a National Park; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Codes of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 135A I speak also to Amendments Nos. 135B, 136, 137, 138 and 140. I understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 136A and 139.
Lord Renton: Amendment No. 136A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Onslow is nonsense. I do not know how it got on to the Marshalled List but I hope that the Committee will ignore it altogether.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case I shall certainly not speak to Amendment No. 136A. However, I am delighted to have the noble Lord's support for Amendment No. 136. I believe there was a little to-ing and fro-ing on these amendments and Amendment No. 136B appears to have disappeared altogether overnight.
We are now dealing with Clause 10 and the code of practice to which reference has been made on a number of occasions; in particular, in the consideration of Clause 8. We have been arguing throughout our proceedings that the code of practice
518
is inadequate in the authority that it needs in order to fulfil the objectives we believe it ought to have.
Amendment No. 135A is straightforward. It simply says that the Secretary of State "shall" approve a code or codes of practice on environment and recreation. Since a draft code of practice has already been published and it seems hardly likely that the Government are not going to proceed with codes of practice, it seems a simple matter of tidying up to say that we should recognise the fact that draft codes of practice are in existence and that, presumably as a result of them, some form of code of practice will emerge and that therefore the Bill should say "shall" rather than "may".
Amendment No. 135B is significant in relation to the scope of the codes of practice in that it brings into the scope of the codes the National Rivers Authority as well as the water and sewerage undertakers that are named in the clause. It is very important to do this because, as the clause stands, the only obligation on the National Rivers Authority is to act as it considers desirable. If a code of practice is to make any sense, inevitably it is going to deal with the relationship between the water undertakers and the National Rivers Authority. It seems quite absurd for a code to be in any way binding on one side but not on the other and not to apply other than when it is considered desirable. Therefore we strongly urge that the code of practice should apply to the National Rivers Authority as well as to the water and the sewerage undertakers.
I turn to the issue of the water and the sewerage undertakers as they are named in the clause. Amendment No. 136, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself, replaces the water undertakers and the sewerage undertakers by the relevant bodies. That seems to us not to be an enormous difference and in fact I do not know what the difference is in practice. It is to bring the wording into line with that of Clause 8. At the end we have Amendment No. 146 which defines the relevant bodies as having the same meaning as in Clause 8. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 have the same effect and it is a matter of tidying up.
Amendments Nos. 137 and 140 are perhaps more significant in that they bring within the code of practice,
"any other owners, occupiers or lessees of any land which was subject to a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act".
In other words they are broadening the coverage of the code of practice to all of the people who ought to be affected by an environmental and recreational code. Unless these amendments or amendments very like them are agreed, we are simply not going to have the effective coverage of environmental and recreational protection which the Government have consistently claimed to be a feature of the Bill.
It is not enough to set up a National Rivers Authority and to blazon it all over the country as a major step towards the protection of the environment, conservation and recreation unless at the same time such protection as there is to be afforded by a code of practice—I am not saying here that it is enough—applies also to the National Rivers

519
Authority. It is not enough to say that it applies to the water and sewerage undertakers unless it also applies to,
"any other owners, occupiers or lessees of any land which was subject to a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act".
Because the code of practice is not in the Bill, it is not directly open to us to debate it in Committee, though I am strongly tempted to put it into the Bill at a later stage as a schedule so that we can consider the detail. I believe that we should do that.
The defects in the coverage of the code of practice are overwhelming and unless we can achieve some progress on that, the detail of the code of practice itself is only of secondary importance. I believe that these amendments give reality to the claims that have been made by the Government on environmental protection. They go some way to putting into practice the claims made in innumerable speeches over recent months. Having made these claims, I hope that the Government will be able to agree to the amendments which give effect to them. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: It will not surprise the Committee to know that, having looked at the Marshalled List, I am partially in favour of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The position is this. During our lengthy discussions on Clause 8 the Government made it clear that they were going to rely upon codes of practice for dealing with a number of the matters of detail which were raised. If I may say so in passing, I think the Government were justified in using that method of dealing with those matters. But when we come to Clause 10, which deals with codes of practice, we find that they are to be made only for the water undertakers and the sewerage undertakers. They are not to be made for the authority—the NRA—or for any internal drainage board.
My noble friend Lord Onslow and I felt it was necessary to find out why codes of practice are not being laid down for the National Rivers Authority, bearing in mind all that we have been told about the guidance that will be given by codes of practice and given, as I understand it, on matters for which the National Rivers Authority has not necessarily sole responsibility but some responsibility. Therefore it seemed to us that amendments on the lines of Amendments Nos. 136 and 139 as a minimum were needed. But having looked at the other amendments on the Marshalled List, and bearing in mind that we have been given undertakings that there are to be codes of practice, I see no reason why the Bill should not say "shall" instead of "may". So Amendment No. 135A, I should have thought, might be acceptable. Amendment No. 135B, in the circumstances with which we are faced, seems also to be reasonable. I have dealt with Amendment No. 136.
I find, however, a great difficulty about Amendment No. 137. At the same time I should mention Amendment No. 140. The effect of those two amendments would be that the Secretary of State could make codes of practice for non-statutory
520
bodies. That is not a thing that is normally done by codes of practice.
Amendment No. 137 inserts the words,
"and any other owners, occupiers or lessees of any land which was subject to a scheme under Schedule 2".
Amendment No. 140 refers to,
"owners, occupiers and lessees".
It is not for the Government to be making codes of practice for the guidance of people right outside the statutory scheme. Therefore I could not possibly agree to Amendments Nos. 137 and 140.
It is sensible, as we want to tidy this up, that we should at least consider Amendment No. 146. However, I do not think it is necessary because the definition of "relevant bodies", which is what we are concerned with, already appears in Clause 8, which is in the same part of the Bill, and deals with the same matters as Clause 10 deals with. Therefore, though it is worth putting it on the Marshalled List, I do not think technically it is necessary.
Baroness Blatch: I support what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Renton but I should like to share another concern with the Committee. Clause 10(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of practice issued (whether by the Secretary of State or another person)".
In Amendment No. 135A the suggestion is that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall". That seems to me acceptable if the Secretary of State is setting the code of practice, but I am not sure that the code should be mandatory if being set by another person.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of Amendment No. 135A would be to require the Secretary of State to approve any code or codes of practice rather than simply that he shall have power to do so. The effect of the remaining amendments would be to extend the bodies to which the code of practice will apply beyond the water and sewerage undertakers. Amendment No. 135B would extend the application of the code to the NRA and the remaining group of amendments would extend the code to the NRA and internal drainage boards, the other relevant bodies under Clause 8; and to the owners, lessees or occupiers of any land which is subject to a scheme under Schedule 2.
Although the code of practice has figured strongly in our debates already, these are the first amendments to deal specifically with it. By way of introduction, I should set out for the Committee the essential elements of our policy. The first point is that there should be absolutely no doubt as to the Secretary of State's intention that the performance of the central duties in Clauses 8 and 9 should be subject to guidance in a code of practice approved by him. Such a code is the right tool since, as we shall argue on a later amendment, regulations would be bureaucratic and rigid in circumstances where diversity and the need for flexibility are paramount. Such a code is a necessary tool because it is right that the Secretary of State who has strong powers to require compliance with the Clause 8 duties should

521
give guidance as to what in his view is necessary to meet them.
Let there be no doubt then of the Government's intention that there should be a code. To this end we have already published a draft text. It is a draft in two senses, besides the obvious one that no such text can have standing before a Bill is enacted.
It is a draft first in that there is scope for further development, as shown by the fact that my noble friends and I have taken away certain amendments which relate to the code for further consideration. The substance of the code has been extensively discussed with the Countryside Commission and the NCC, and I am most grateful for all the work they have done towards it. We have also had major suggestions and contributions from the Sports Council and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. It would be invidious of me to extend the list, but we have listened to the main organisations. None of them, will agree with every word. Of course not. But I doubt if any of them will deny it is a helpful step forward in trying to codify what good practice in conservation, access and recreation represents for the water industry.
We have therefore listened; and we will go on listening. While I believe the bulk of what can and should be said in this area is there, inevitably some points may have been overlooked, or need clarification or elaboration. If so, then there is time for the points to be further considered, and we shall of course be happy to do so.
But it is a draft also in one other respect. In it we have drawn together all the considerations relevant to all the different functions of water bodies. We thought Parliament would want to see the overall picture and be able to discern a coherent approach. But different bodies will have different functions; and any code will apply to them using different powers. After enactment therefore the single code of practice is likely to emerge as several different documents tailored to the different relevant bodies and the powers under which it is applied. I assure the Committee, however, that any such process of disaggregation will not involve any dilution in content or effect.
Against this essential background we can consider the amendments relating to the clause, and I turn now to those immediately before us. Dealing first with Amendment No. 135A, were it accepted as it stands it would of course mean that the Secretary of State has to approve any such code by whomsoever drawn up and with whatever content. That would of course be ridiculous and is not, I am sure, the proposers' intention. The intention is, I assume, simply that there shall be a code and that the Secretary of State shall approve a code of some kind.
There are two arguments against this. First, in the light of the Secretary of State's actual intentions of which I spoke earlier I suggest that such an amendment is unnecessary. Secondly, perhaps I may put it to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and to my noble friend Lord Renton that changing "may" to "shall" causes difficulty because we want to preserve the position where there may be several codes to allow for supplementary ones to cover the
522
circumstances of particular regions or functions. To have to say the Secretary of State may approve any number of codes but shall approve at least one is messy and unhelpful. Thus, given our clear intentions, reflected in the draft code already published, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary; and, given the other considerations that I have set out, I suggest that it is undesirable.
I turn now to the remaining amendments in the group which would apply the code to other bodies. Dealing first with the NRA, it is important that the authority, as well as the undertakers, should follow the guidance in the code with respect to its environmental duties under Clauses 8 and 9. That is our intention, and the NRA Advisory Committee is keen that the authority should follow the best advice on these matters. However, what the amendments fail to recognise is that the Secretary of State already has powers to direct the NRA to comply with the code in the performance of its duties, in the unlikely event that that was ever necessary or appropriate.
In the case of internal drainage boards, the position is somewhat similar. They will be supervised by the NRA, which my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will direct on its drainage functions. In addition, he can veto or impose conditions on improvement works undertaken by internal drainage boards under the Land Drainage Improvement Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1217). The powers are sufficient to ensure that the guidelines in the code are given effect to by the boards.
The final category of body to which it is; proposed that the code should apply is owners, occupiers or lessees of any land subject to a scheme under Schedule 2. The reasons why that is not appropriate, go back to our discussion earlier today. The fact is that the duties in Clauses 8 and 9 to which the code is to apply are, essentially, about the performance of the water industry's function. That is what the code deals with. That is what creates the need for it. The simple fact is that the code will not be relevant to successors in title because they will not have these functions, a point we have spent much time discussing today.
For the reasons that I have given, the amendments in this case are unnecessary or inappropriate. Nevertheless, I hope that some reassurance can be drawn from what I have said.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend is right to resist the amendment. To have "shall" instead of "may" brings in an unnecessary rigidity which might boomerang. My noble friend has explained that there is likely to be more than one code, so we are not dealing with something that is easily identifiable as a separate point. Clause 10 provides that the Secretary of State may:
"by statutory instrument approve any code of practice",
so the clause anticipates more than one code.
The point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch emphasised the good sense of what my noble friend the Minister is trying to explain to us. It is not just

523
the Secretary of State who may be the author of the code; the clause provides for any other person. To have a fixed "shall approve" is much too wide and anonymous. In those circumstances "may" seems to be right. For the sake of the people who will have to operate the matter in the future, I hope that my noble friend will stand firm.
Lord Renton: I appreciate some of the points that my noble friend has made, but I do not follow him entirely. He has not answered an important point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who wondered why it was that the codes of practice could be issued by a person other than the Secretary of State. I think that we should be told that.
Also, my noble friend said that there was no need for the code of practice to give guidance to the NRA because elsewhere in the Bill he can give directions to the NRA. I am not disputing that that is so, but I have been trying to refresh my memory, and I have been trying to find where that happens. I should be very grateful if my noble friend could tell us where the Secretary of State is given either the power or the duty to give such directions. Perhaps I may say that I am sure that he is absolutely right about the discretionary nature of this, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might agree that Amendment No. 135A was not necessary. Before we leave the matter I think it would be helpful if we could have clarification from my noble friend on the two points I mentioned.
I wish to add this. My noble friend says that the NRA does not need to have a code of practice. I am not sure whether this is relevant; perhaps it is not. Under Clause 8(7) we find that:
" 'relevant body' means the Authority, a water undertaker, a sewerage undertaker or an internal drainage board".
I find it hard to believe that when we have codes of conduct for some of those bodies it might not be helpful at any rate for the power to be there to give help in the code of conduct to each of them.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may help my noble friend on the first point he asked about which I think was directions to the NRA or other bodies. I refer him to Clause 142, which doubtless we shall reach in the fullness of time and which says:
"Directions of a general or specific character may be given to the Authority";
that is the NRA.
The second point to which my noble friend referred was the point which my noble friend Lady Blatch raised earlier and I apologise to her for not covering it when I answered originally. If my noble friends read Clause 10(1) carefully, I am sure that they will agree with me that the code can only be approved by the Secretary of State but could be prepared by other persons. Perhaps I may give my noble friends the example of the NRA which might want to prepare its own more detailed code for the Secretary of State's approval. That is why the words are as stated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At this hour of the night I think it is necessary that we strip these amendments down to the bare essentials. I agree with noble Lords who said that Amendment No. 135A is unnecessary. I think it would be wrong to impose on the Secretary of State the duty to approve a code drawn up by somebody else. I agree with the Minister that it could be desirable for a code of practice to be drawn up by somebody else other than the Secretary of State. I also accept, although I do not agree with it, that we have a major difference between us about other owners, occupiers and lessees. Although we do not agree, it is not a matter that I propose to pursue tonight.
However, I am profoundly unconvinced by the argument that the National Rivers Authority should be excluded from the code of practice. I am not satisfied with the answer that the Secretary of State has the power to impose general duties under Clause 142. I am encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this, both in relation to my Amendment No. 135B and to Amendments Nos. 136 and 139 which specifically refer back to Clause 8(7), which includes the authority among the relevant bodies.
It seems to me that if we have a code of practice which applies to the water and sewerage undertakers, it will apply to them significantly in their relationships with the National Rivers Authority. The same code of practice ought to apply to the authority as to the undertakers. We might move towards that with the general directions under Clause 142, but that is not a satisfactory answer. As I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this, I wonder whether the Minister, rather than challenging me to seek the opinion of the Committee, will feel able to think about it again before the next stage.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, I should say that this is quite a complicated and difficult matter. We have had a very useful and open minded debate about it. I should have thought the best thing is to study Hansard very carefully before we go any further. If, meanwhile, my noble friend cares to give any further thought to the matter, that indeed could also be helpful.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that in his view Amendment No. 142 did not give the power to the Secretary of State? Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are talking about Clause 142, not Amendment No. 142. Clause 142 gives the Secretary of State the power to give general directions. But that is not the same as having a code of practice which applies both to the National Rivers Authority and to the water undertakings.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I accept the Secretary of State has the power to give general directions, and the authority concerned must comply with that.
Lord Renton: We should bear in mind that general directions do not include detailed guidance. Statutes

525
often give power to give general directions, but they have to be general.
Viscount Caldecote: My noble friend the Minister has put great emphasis on the importance of the code of practice. Will he not take this away and consider it? Surely it is much better to have the provision as stated in Amendment No. 135B, rather than leave it to the general powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 142. I hope my noble friend will think again.
The Earl of Caithness: Of course I shall read with care what has been said. I think that my noble friend Lord Renton was right to say that we should all take a deep breath and read the Official Report in the cold light of day. I must admit I had great difficulty in following the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as regards not liking the powers under Clause 142, when it came to the code of practice. But perhaps that matter may be clearer to me tomorrow morning or whenever I receive the Official Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are making progress only an inch at a time. I do not think that is good enough. The Minister has now been criticised on this specific point by his noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Caldecote. Both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord asked him to do more than say he would read what has been said. Will he acknowledge that there is concern on both sides of the Chamber about this matter? And will he undertake to think about it between now and the next stage of the Bill? I am not saying he has to reach any particular conclusion. But will he please undertake to think about the matter?
The Earl of Caithness: Of course I undertake to think about it. The noble Lord knows that I undertake to think about all the amendments we consider, and particularly ones where concern is expressed on all sides of the Chamber. On this particular amendment it is true that two of my noble friends have expressed concern besides the noble Lord. I said that I found it difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, and that applies equally to the concern of my noble friends. However, I shall of course look at this matter again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that that is the further inch I was looking for. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135B to 140 not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to secure that the code of practice is subject to parliamentary scrutiny rather than being solely at the discretion of the department. Clause 10, as drafted, does not provide for the code to be subject
526
to either affirmative or negative resolution. Amendments to this effect were tabled in another place but were resisted by the Government on the grounds that such procedures were much too time-consuming. Such procedures do, however, apply in the majority of cases of codes issued under legislative authority, and invariably where important issues of concern to the public are at stake.
The guidance on codes of practice in legislation issued by the Attorney-General in 1988 states:
"Departments should ensure that there is appropriate provision for Parliamentary procedure when the nature and importance of the subject matter of a Code warrants it".
The code is intended to constitute a framework within which the new plcs are expected to carry out their statutory environmental and recreational duties. The Government's decision not to allow the code to be scrutinised by either House may therefore be seen as indicative of an unwillingness to give the code the status which it deserves.
I know that the boating interests regard the code as of vital significance. They also feel strongly that it should be subject to the negative resolution procedure to avoid the possibility of the department interpreting the legislation as it sees fit and in a manner other than Parliament intended. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: As Amendment No. 147 is linked with Amendment No. 141, perhaps I may speak to that amendment. I go along with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has just said but I hope that he will agree that Amendment No. 147 is preferable because it makes clear that the code should be subject to affirmative resolution. I think that the code which has been greatly discussed in Committee tonight is accepted—but perhaps not by the Minister—as leaving much to be desired. We want to be able to have a say in the matter. Given the continued disquiet, it would seem sensible for this Chamber to reserve to itself the opportunity to review the code when the final draft is produced.
Although provision could be made under the negative resolution procedure there would, as most of us know, be no guarantee of a debate. On an issue as important as this, on which the Government have sought to rely in showing the extent of the Bill's environmental protection, it must be worthwhile to accept at this stage that a proper debate and vote would give the code the authority it clearly requires.
Viscount Caldecote: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on this amendment. The Government are in danger of appearing schizophrenic in respect of the code of practice. On the one hand they say that it is very important indeed, while on the other hand in response to every proposal to strengthen the code of practice and its implementation they say that it is not very important and it is better to save time.
I do not mind which of these two amendments we pass, but if the argument against them is that they are too time-consuming, that seems to indicate that the Government do not attach a great deal of importance to the code of practice. I hope that they will think very carefully about accepting one or other

527
of the amendments, but I do not think that it matters very much which of them is accepted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to reinforce my noble friend's argument. That is an amendment which could and indeed should be accepted. If in reserving the power to Parliament, extra time is taken up, that is the price that has to be paid. That is Parliament's job. That runs through the whole process of applying statutes, whether through the law courts or anywhere else. In order to confirm that real importance is attached to the code of practice, this amendment could be accepted. To do so would be in the spirit of what my noble friend has already said.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is peculiarly silent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with everything that has been said from the noble Earl's Back-Benches. I hope that he will follow my example.
The Earl of Caithness: The only difference between these two amendments is that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, seeks a negative resolution and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, seeks an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have listened with great care to what has been said and I understand the concern of your Lordships. However, there are a number of points that I should like to put before the Committee. I shall of course use the argument that some noble Lords anticipated that I would use about the question of time. We want to have a code in place for the undertakers without any delay, but I strongly take issue with my noble friend Lord Caldecote and say that that does not mean that we do not attach importance to it. We attach great importance to the code.
There is another point. In the nature of such codes, the Secretary of State is likely to want from time to time to revise, elaborate or qualify his advice and guidance to the undertakers. If any amendment were accepted, parliamentary procedure would be needed for any minor amendment. The arrangement would therefore lose some flexibility.
The key point is that the focus is not so much on the advice of the code, but on the duties themselves which Parliament will have fully debated. The practical advice in the code represents good practice developed over some years and on which there is a wide degree of general acceptance. But it is the duties themselves which are critical, to which noble Lords have given so much time and which will be debated again.
There is one other point that I am sure my noble friend Lord Renton will agree with from his experience; namely, that in most cases of guidance of this kind there is ordinarily no requirement for the affirmative resolution procedure of the kind proposed. It would be a break with common practice. I am not necessarily against that. I undertake to look again at what has been said by noble Lords tonight, but I thought it only right to draw the Committee's attention to my concerns.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Greenway: I was becoming a little worried until the last few words of the Minister when he let himself off the hook by saying that he would perhaps look again at the matter. It is obviously a matter that one or two of us feel quite strongly about and I am grateful for the support that I have received from Members on the Back Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I do not intend to trade arguments with him as this late hour of the night as to whether negative or affirmative resolutions are better. On the undertaking given by the Minister that he will see whether he can find some way of incorporating our wishes in this matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) The relevant bodies shall—

(a) draw up and publish policies and procedures for fulfilling their duties under sections 8 and 9 above and for implementing any Code of Practice as for the time being approved under this section; and

(b) publish annually a report describing the measures taken during the previous year to fulfil their duties under sections 8 and 9 of this Act.

( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to review the performance of the relevant bodies in fulfilling their duties under sections 8 and 9 of this Act at intervals not greater than five years.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is one of accountability and monitoring. We do not see anywhere in the Bill a mechanism to ensure that the water bodies' performance of their conservation duties can be publicly monitored. The amendment requires them to state their policies and procedures. It is perfectly sensible for them to tell us exactly what they intend to do in conformity with the Act.
We should also have an annual yardstick whereby we can determine whether they have fulfilled those duties. The Minister may well say that it is not for us or the public to do so and that there is some other mechanism. I should be grateful if he would explain the position. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 142 would require that the bodies to which the code is to apply should draw up policies and procedures for fulfilling their duties in Clauses 8 and 9 and for implementing the code of practice, and publish annually a report describing measures taken in consequence. It would also require the Secretary of State to review performance at least once every five years.
I am grateful to the proposers of the amendment for drawing our attention to an important consideration. As we say in the code of practice, it is important that the bodies should report regularly and publicly on their performance in these areas. The question is whether the particular statutory arrangements proposed here are appropriate.
We have, first of all, one specific reservation. While it may be appropriate to require reporting on performance of the duties, it is not similarly

529
appropriate in relation to the practices recommended in the code. The code gives a wide range of detailed advice and guidance and it is inherently difficult to report on performance of advice and guidance because of its essential character. This, therefore, is one element on which we dissent from the proposal.
More generally, I do doubt whether statutory reporting, prescribed in legislation, is appropriate. The duties in Clauses 8 and 9 inform and condition every aspect of the performance of the undertakers' functions, and it is inherently difficult to report on these features independently of any annual report on the performance of the functions themselves. The conclusion to which we are therefore drawn is that a statutory requirement is unduly rigid and inappropriate.
Furthermore, the amendment raises the question why, if there is to be a separate statutory reporting requirement in respect of these duties, there is not one also in respect of all the other statutory duties imposed on the companies in the Bill. But while for these reasons we doubt that an amendment of this kind is the right course to follow, we recognise that this is a matter which is at present inadequately covered in the draft code. We shall be looking again at that and we shall want to consider whether there are features of this amendment which we could suitably incorporate in the revision of the code.
To that extent we will be happy to take on board the underlying point of this amendment. But I am bound to say that we believe that guidance in the code is the right mechanism to employ. We believe the bodies concerned should be allowed greater flexibility as to the form, scope and timing of any reporting. This is an area where there is scope for experiment and diversity. The guidance in the code can be more flexible and this makes it in our view the more appropriate mechanism by which to pursue the objectives of this amendment.
We recognise the importance of the points which the proposers make, and we will endeavour so far as is reasonably practicable, through the code, to meet them. But for the reasons I have given we do not believe that adopting this amendment as it stands would be the right way to proceed. We recognise that this is a fine balance of judgment, and I hope that on reflection the noble Lords will feel that what we have proposed will meet their essential objectives and that they have no need to press their amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendments have been printed in the wrong order. May I therefore call Amendment No. 143 first.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A water undertaker or sewerage undertaker which contravenes the code of practice shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
530

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

and the Secretary of State shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining when and how he should exercise his powers under the following provisions of this Act in relation to any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker.").
The noble Lord said: I certainly welcome the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation. The code lays down in some detail guidelines to the private water companies as to how they should manage their land and water holdings to benefit the environment, permit access and recreation and resolve conflicts between the many interests concerned. But it worries me that such a comprehensive code should in effect be only voluntary. Although the code is to be approved by the Secretary of State—a fact which has allowed it to be described (in my view somewhat improperly) as "statutory"—the terms of Clause 10 quite explicitly state that a contravention of the code should not give rise to any criminal or civil liability.
How then is the code to be enforced? The clause also provides that the Secretary of Stale shall take account of any contravention of the code when considering how to exercise his powers under the Act. In practice this means that the Secretary of State has the option of using enforcement procedure under Clause 20 of the Bill. This is a complicated, legalistic procedure and its conditions are set out over five pages of the Bill. Its ultimate sanction is that the Secretary of State can remove the licence from a water or a sewerage undertaker. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Secretary of State would be persuaded to use such a power to ensure that, for instance, a bird-watching or angling club's access to the shores of a reservoir should be preserved.
In another place the Minister for Sport claimed that, were the Secretary of State to choose not to take account of the code that he had approved, or came to a decision that a reasonable Secretary of State could not have come to, his own actions or inactions would be subject to judicial review. I confess to being somewhat mystified by that claim. The Secretary of State's decision could, not would, be subject to judicial review if somebody were prepared to seek it. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that an angling or bird-watching club would go to such extreme lengths should a water undertaker breach some detail of the code of practice? I realise that judicial review is possible but in practice it will not happen. And so to claim, as the Minister for Sport has done, that this is an effectiye sanction is not credible.
My amendment aims to provide a realistic route for enforcement of the code of practice. It is supported by conservation and recreation organisations alike, which are equally concerned that the code is, in effect, voluntary. It will be possible for a sewerage or water undertaker to be prosecuted in a magistrates' court or, if necessary, a higher court for a breach of the code of practice. Although the level of fine imposed is unlikely to be a major deterrent in preventing a breach, enforcement through the courts could bring the incident to public

531
attention and deter an undertaker from such a course of action in the future.
The Government have claimed that, to make the code of practice directly enforceable, it would have to be translated into regulations which would leave it bureaucratic and inflexible. It is claimed that much of the good practice guidelines which have been welcomed by the environmental and recreational groups would have to be dropped. I have difficulty in accepting that argument. Ultimately the code is only useful if it can be realistically enforced. If the price of that enforcement is truly that it becomes bureaucratic, then so be it. I see no reason why the good practice guidelines should not be retained while other parts of the code are translated into regulations.
One element of the code of practice is causing particular concern. The organisations representing angling believe that the code does not protect existing use of water authority land for recreation. For instance, page 27 of the draft code states that,
"there is a presumption that, subject to suitable terms and conditions, public use of full sporting and recreational facilities, once established, should be maintained by the grant or renewal of leases or licences".
The problem is that the facilities already established do not fall within the meaning of this provision. However, the code recognises in a later provision that,
"existing users of sport and recreational facilities on undertakers' land or water should be consulted prior to the introduction on those lands or waters of any new sporting or recreational activity".
This is welcome. However, consultation does not ensure the continuation of existing arrangements, nor does it offer any further protection for existing users. I can well understand that anglers, who have traditionally been among the most prolific users of water authorities' recreational facilities, should be concerned that their sport might be denied in favour of another. Perhaps the Minister will give us his assurance that the final version of the code will recognise the rights of existing users.
The recreation and conservation duties in Clause 8 rely on this code of practice to give them meaning. If the duties are to be effective, it follows that the code must be enforceable by sensible means. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we have all been very interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Norrie. It is an advantage for us to consider, in connection with this amendment, what effect codes of practice will have.
Although there have been a number of codes of practice over the years, there has been no consistent attitude on the part of Parliament towards codes of practice. But none of them has so far given rise to criminal sanctions in the way that my noble friend proposes. Indeed, to me it is unthinkable that the Secretary of State or another person—as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out earlier—drafting a code of practice should have the power to make criminal law and to subject contraventions to all the sanctions of the criminal law. That surely is not what codes of practice are for.
532
With codes of practice in the Water Bill—let us not consider the general doctrine, theory or practice of codes—the intention is to give guidance to people who will in effect be performing a public service but doing so differently from the way in which it has been performed in the past, and who will be raising capital for the benefit of the public in performing that service. They will be required to observe all kinds of obligations with regard to conservation, recreation and so on. For us to go into vast detail in either primary or secondary legislation as to all the possibilities that can arise when they are performing these functions would make it not only a Bill of 387 pages, as we have, but perhaps more like 500 pages.
By having the codes of practice, whatever their exact status, the Secretary of State will be able to give guidance—and guidance of a kind that is needed. But criminal sanctions, no. There will be occasions under the law as it is at the moment when criminal sanctions will apply in matters which have a bearing on this; for example, under the Prevention of Pollution Act, the Malicious Damage Act and so on. However, I would not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to say that a code of practice in these circumstances could give rise to criminal sanctions.
12 midnight
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With Amendment No. 143 are grouped Amendments Nos. 143A, 148A, 148B, 201A and 202A in my name. I listened with interest to Members of the Committee who have spoken and with particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I agree with him that criminal sanctions, in the sense of fines in the courts, would be quite inappropriate for a code of practice. I had hoped however that he would agree with me that to make compliance with the code of practice a condition of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers is a quite different matter. It does not involve any of the issues of principle about primary and secondary legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raises, but provides the minimum enforceability which there ought to be for a code of practice.
If one goes to all the trouble of having a code of practice agreed by all and sundry and having the Secretary of State approve it, after it has been the basis of argument throughout the passage of the Bill and before, surely the least that could happen is that it should be a condition of the appointment of the undertakers that they should comply with the code. Otherwise, what sanctions are there? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Government will feel, if they do not want to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that they can agree to my Amendment No. 143A and the consequentials.
The Earl of Caithness: All the amendments in this group concern liability for compliance with the code of practice. Amendment No. 143, in the name of my noble friend, would make contraventions civil and criminal offences. Amendments Nos. 143A, 148A and 148B would make compliance a condition of appointment of the companies. Amendments Nos. 201A and 202A would make the code an enforceable statutory requirement in its own right.

533
By way of background, I should first explain the position in the Bill as drafted and the thinking that lies behind it. We must start, therefore, with the intrinsic nature of codes of practice. They give guidance as to how duties should be performed. Their purpose is to clarify. They provide assistance. But the fundamental point is that it has to remain the governing duties themselves to which liability attaches.
There are many reasons for this rule. Any Member of the Committee who has read the code will recognise some of them. The matters covered there do not lend themselves to absolute or precise prescription. They are guidelines which the Secretary of State would normally expect to see followed. They identify factors he would expect to see taken into account in particular decisions. That is the usual arrangement with codes of practice and it is inescapable.
But I submit that the Committee would be making a serious mistake if it concluded for that reason that the code was ineffective. The provision says that the Secretary of State shall take account of any breach in deciding when and how to use his proper powers under the Act. Here of course the key ones are his enforcement powers under Clause 20. And in this regard I ask Members to note the words of Clause 10 carefully: not "may" take it into account but "shall". On this basis, the fact is that the code is of substantial weight and effect—as much as can reasonably be given to any such document.
Finally, if the Committee were to want the code to be directly enforceable, it would have to be translated into regulations. But in doing this a significant proportion of the guidelines would have to be dropped. That in the Government's view would be a considerable loss. If the choice is between a narrow set of regulations which are directly enforceable or a far broader, more practical code which is indirectly enforceable, we believe that the latter holds out the greater prospects of producing the progress we want to see.
I know that my noble friend Lord Norrie cannot accept that that is true, but I must tell him that the code is not sufficiently precise to be the subject of regulations. For, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out so well, such a code as we propose is totally inappropriate for criminal or civil sanctions.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful for the wise comments of my noble friends Lord Renton and the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 143B
Page 10, line 5, after ("make") insert ("or modify").
The noble Lord said: We have now reached the ninth page of a 387-page Bill. In relation to Clause 10(3) we have a mixed bag of amendments. There are three of mine, one from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and one from the Government. They all have the intention of improving the consultation which shall be made before an order is made under
534
the subsection; in other words, an order relating to the code of conduct.
Amendment No. 143B appears to be of such common sense that even at this late hour I hope the Government will accept it. It is in no way in conflict with the intentions of the Bill. It provides that the Secretary of State shall not make or modify an order. Secretaries of State do modify orders and it would be appropriate for them to consult about modification as well as about the making of an order. Sometimes modifications of orders, particularly after the first, will be as significant as the original order. We believe that it is necessary to extend the consultation for that purpose.
My second amendment is No. 145A dealing with an inexplicable omission. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England is included in the subsection so Cadw—the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for Wales, partly run by the Welsh Office and the Welsh Tourist Authority—surely ought also to be included, because the Bill covers Wales. Incidentally, if the amendment is agreed to—although it is entirely proper use of legislation—I believe it will be the first time that a Welsh word has been included in legislation of this kind.
Amendment No. 145B refers to the need to consult with local authorities' county councils, which I always thought were local authorities but I am told that technically they are not for this purpose, and the National Park Authority is whose area in whole or in part the code of practice is to apply. That does not mean that all local authorities or national park authorities must be consulted. However, when there is a specific order about a specific case in a specific part of the country it seems perverse to consult the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and so forth but not the local authority in the area, which has such extensive powers. I also support Amendment No. 144 on the Central Council of Physical Recreation and Government Amendment No. 145 on the inclusion of the Sports Council. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My amendment relates to the need to consult the Central Council of Physical Recreation. On Second Reading I outlined the reasons why the boating interests were unhappy with the code of practice. At this late stage I shall not enumerate the reasons once again. I am sure that the Minister is now conversant with them. However, very little is said in the code about recreation and the draft is addressed almost entirely to important environmental considerations.
In addition, there is a failure to address the need for consultation with recreational interests. The boating interests have asked that in addition to the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and, indeed, the Sports Council as proposed by the Minister's amendment should be consulted under subsection (3) on the preparation of the code. That was hitherto resisted by the Government on the basis that the CCPR and the Sports Council are not statutory bodies, that the Countryside Commission is there to cover recreation

535
as well as conservation interests and that the subsection allows the Secretary of State to consult other bodies at will. However, there is no bar to allowing non-statutory bodies to be named in legislation.
The boating interests remain concerned to see a specific provision made for consultation with recreational interests for the following reasons. First, the CCPR and the Sports Council and voluntary recreational bodies were not consulted on the draft code before it was published, that draft being largely, as I understand it, the work of the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council.
Secondly, it is desirable for sport and recreation bodies as well as conservation bodies to be named expressly in the clause. Thirdly, while the statutory duties of the Countryside Commission embrace furthering recreation in all forms, in practice, whether by inclination or as a matter of expediency, the emphasis of the Countryside Commission is on informal recreation—for example, walking and bird watching—as opposed to sports such as boating, which, as a result, are not assured of any full or sympathetic consideration.
The boating interests also have in mind that the Countryside Commission has specifically requested that the Bill be altered to make recreational duties secondary to conservation considerations. I do not in any way wish to denigrate the work of the Countryside Commission, for which I know the boating interests have great admiration. However, their experience leads them to believe that it is not well suited to act as a channel for the expression of the interests of sport or, indeed, sport orientated recreation and should not be relied upon in this context to do so.
The Earl of Arran: To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I shall do my best to be as bare and essential in this amendment as possible. The effect sought in Amendment No. 143B is to require that the consultation requirements— —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that I was being bare. I said that I was reducing the arguments to a bare minimum. That is rather different.
The Earl of Arran: In that case, the words are my own. Perhaps I may start with the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The effect sought in Amendment No. 143B is to require that the consultation requirements set out in Clause 10(3) shall have effect in respect of the modification of any code of practice as well as in respect of the initial approval of such a code. The amendment is, however, unnecessary since the consultation obligations apply to any order, whether that order is to approve, modify or withdraw approval of a code.
The four associated amendments seek to widen the scope of the consultation which the Secretary of State shall undertake in making or modifying any order under Clause 10. Let me outline our general position here. Consultation in this area is of course desirable, and we have already shown our
536
recognition of this. But it is wholly undesirable to string out the list of consultees indefinitely in Bill provisions.
It is clearly essential that the Secretary of State consult the main bodies which Parliament has established with responsibilities in the relevant area. On conservation, it is right the NCC should have a key role. On landscape, countryside and recreation, the involvement of the Countryside Commission is equally essential. Both are specifically covered. In respect of historic buildings, it is the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. On sport, we believe it should be the Sports Council, and that is a point to which I shall return shortly.
But that is where a general requirement for consultation should stop. Local authorities and county councils do not have lead responsibilities of the same kind in this area. National park authorities, the Council for the National Parks and other bodies connected with the parks have of course close contacts with the Countryside Commission and are covered in that way.
Nothing in what I have said underestimates the role of local authorities or individual park authorities. But their interests are likely to be narrower and more occasional. It would be wrong therefore to specify them in the legislation. They are there as such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult. That is the best arrangement.
As for Cadw, the point is simply that it is not an independent body but part of the Welsh Office responsible to the Secretary of State. How can we place in the Bill an obligation for the Secretary of State to consult the Secretary of State! But of course Cadw's views will be known and will be taken into account.
Next we are asked to consider including the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The CCPR plays a valuable role as the organisation of governing bodies of sport and recreation. But there are two principal reasons why we believe it would not be appropriate to include it as a statutory consultee—because it is a voluntary body and because it has close links with the Sports Council, which we believe is the more appropriate statutory consultee and through which it can put forward its views. Having said that, we have in fact already consulted the CCPR on our draft code and I have no doubt that we shall do so on other relevant occasions.
Finally, I come to the Sports Council. In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Minister of State for Water said that he intended very fully to consult the Sports Council on orders under Clause 10. However, having had regard to the key role of the council on sporting matters we would very much wish to insert reference to the Sports Council on the face of the Bill with the comparable bodies already there. Amendment No. 145 would achieve that.
For all the reasons I stated earlier, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendments. The effect would be to string out indefinitely statutory consultation obligations which are already full and sufficient by any reasonable standards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: From what I have heard, the intention of Amendment No. 145B is not necessary if modifying an order is to make an order. That is not my understanding, but if that is the case I shall gladly not move Amendment No. 145B.
I am of course disappointed with the noble Earl's reaction to my other amendments. I am particularly disappointed at what he said about Cadw because he is wrong. It is not part of the Welsh Office. It is constitutionally a hybrid. Only 50 per cent. of Cadw is under the Welsh Office and the other 50 per cent. comes under the Welsh Tourist Authority. Cadw was not consulted when the conservation guidelines for drainage authorities were first drawn up. It only learnt about them from a third party. If the noble Earl thinks about this matter again he will realise that he is not putting Wales and England on an equal footing. On reflection he will feel—I do not challenge him to rise to his feet again—when he reads Hansard that he ought to reconsider his objection to the inclusion of Cadw in the list. For the reasons I have given I shall not press the matter now.
Lord Greenway: As far as I am concerned one barrel is better than none. If the Government agree to write the Sports Council into the Bill that at least goes halfway towards meeting what the boating interests required before the Bill went to the House of Commons. Therefore, with that provision in mind, I shall be happy not to move my Amendment No. 144.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 143B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 10, line 8, after ("England") insert (", the Sports Council").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 145A to 147 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg leave to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.

  ARMS EXPORTS TO IRAN AND IRAQ
  ARMS EXPORTS TO IRAN AND IRAQ
  FOOTBALL: TAX REVENUE
  FOOTBALL: TAX REVENUE
  BOPHUTHATSWANA: TRADE POLICY
  BOPHUTHATSWANA: TRADE POLICY
  HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER FUND
  HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER FUND
  NORTHERN IRELAND SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS FOR BIRDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS FOR BIRDS
  PESTICIDES: APPROVED USES
  PESTICIDES: APPROVED USES
  BUSINESS RATE: REFORM ARRANGEMENTS
  BUSINESS RATE: REFORM ARRANGEMENTS