Sitting of 15 May 1989

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

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's most up-to-day estimate of the energy savings that would accrue if the latest standards of energy efficiency in buildings were implemented.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The Building Research Establishment has estimated that the proposals for amending the requirement in the building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power would improve the energy efficiency of new buildings by about 20 per cent. compared with existing regulations.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that if the Government were to back a scheme of energy conservation along the lines either of the Eurisol report or that of the Milton Keynes' energy cost effects, we could cut CO2 emissions by between 39 million and 43 million tonnes a year? Does he think that that would be an extremely good investment for the Government because at a stroke they would reduce those emissions and energy costs, and cut the need to build so many more power stations?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government are in favour of energy conservation measures, but we must balance the position by accepting that, even taking account of energy conservation measures, on most estimates there will be a continuing increase in the demand for electricity. If one is interested in CO2 emissions, as the hon. Gentleman is and as we are, the issue is how to get balanced fuel production which will reduce CO2. That is why we are in favour of nuclear energy and why we are surprised that the Labour party is not.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of energy is lost through the windows of our homes? How much longer will it be before he prevails on the Secretary of State for the Environment to have double glazing as an integral part of new build houses? That is needed as much as damp courses. If double glazing were installed at the beginning, it would save all the conversions which must take place later and it would be an enormous saving of energy.
    Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for building regulations. Only about 1 per cent. of building stock is replaced every year, so taking the 20 per cent. figure that I mentioned in my original answer, the potential savings are 1 per cent. of 20 per cent. The matter must be seen in context.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister admit that the Government's record on energy efficiency and insulation during the past decade has greatly worsened and is most unsatisfactory, particularly compared with the rest of western Europe? Does he accept that if we reach those standards we would not need to build any more nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, we are above the European Community average for energy conservation and efficency.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Five per cent. above.
    Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend says that we are 5 per cent. above the EC average. If one takes CO2 emissions as a proportion of electricity generated, our position has greatly improved.

    North Sea Wells
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration and appraisal wells have been drilled in the North sea since drilling began.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Up to the end of April 1989 a total of 2,114 exploration and appraisal wells had been started on the United Kingdom continental shelf since drilling began in December 1964.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reserves are much higher than orginally envisaged? does he accept that it is an encouraging sign that applicants are now finding viable much smaller fields than the large fields that were orginally viable?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I can confirm that the past two years have been extremely good years in the North sea with record exploration, good finds and record investment. It is now clear that we shall be a substantial producer of oil and gas for at least the next 25 years.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Secretary of State has accepted that there may be some danger to safety in the North sea if the geomagnetic survey comes to an end and as his Department has accepted that there are circumstances in which he may be prepared to pay a contribution for the continuation of that programme, will he consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science and ensure that funding continues beyond 15 July so that a package of finance can be put together?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, Sir. I will.
    Mr. Hannam: Do not those welcome figures show that the tax regime following the Budget is about right? Can my right hon. Friend tell us how developments are proceeding in the North sea and whether our self-sufficiency will extend into the years ahead?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, Sir. In the last year, not only was there a great deal of activity and exploration, but 24 developments, representing an investment of more than £32 billion, were approved by my Department. It is now clear that our reserves will last considerably longer than anyone originally dreamt. That is no reason why we should not take action to find more and to conserve what we have, but the picture is promising.
    Mr. Doran: The Secretary of State is rightly encouraged by the rate of development in the North sea, but he will be aware that the rate of discovery is still much less than the rate of production. Can he give us a precise date for the latest estimates of our self-sufficiency, and what measures has he taken to extend the period of self-suficiency?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give those exact figures. It is clear that 1988 was not a good year for discovery as compared with exploration, but this year is much better. There have been seven discoveries in the first three and a half months of the year, and it is clear that the rate of production in the future will tail off much more gently than we had expected.

    West Burton Power Station
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive firm proposals for starting construction of the proposed West Burton 1800 MW coal-fired power station.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend is still waiting for Nottinghamshire county council, Bassetlaw district council and the CEGB to sign agreements. When he receives them he will decide whether to give his consent to construct the station. The timing of construction is a matter for the applicant.
    Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State usually answers this question, but today he has put up the junior Minister. What does he think he is playing at? Before the election, he said that we would have a station at West Burton. Look at him laughing and grinning all over his face! He has used the excuse of planning problems and problems with the CEGB, but those problems are now out of the way. Why does not the Minister pull his socks up and let us have this station? It would be in the interests of jobs and power for Nottinghamshire and the nation. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for laughing when I am putting this serious problem to him. Come off it! He should get up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that we are going to have that power station.
    Mr. Spicer: Somewhere in there was a question trying to get out. I shall answer it in these terms. Tripartite agreement between the local authorities and the CEGB on the main conditions has been reached, although several minor issues on highway matters are outstanding. I believe that the signed agreements will be with us shortly, after which my right hon. Friend will be able to decide whether to hold a public inquiry.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: I am delighted by my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). We and everyone else in Nottinghamshire know that the 25 per cent. reduction in real terms in the cost of raw materials to the CEGB was due to the increase in productivity by the Nottinghamshire miners, who can guarantee a secure supply to the new power station. Will my hon. Friend bring that fact to the attention of the authorities who will decide when the station is built?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. The nation and the electricity consumer owe a great deal to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, for whom I think he was speaking. The Opposition would do well to think about that occasionally. The area boards, which will be a key determinant in the future of West Burton, believe that it is a good site for a coal-fired power station. Their precise needs will be determined by their obligation to supply and by the estimates that they make of future demand for electricity.
    Mr. Wallace: If a coal-fired station is built at West Burton, can the Minister estimate what percentage of the coal burn will be imported coal? Does he propose to introduce regulations covering the sulphur content of imported coal, bearing in mind the low sulphur content of much of the coal mined in the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland?
    Mr. Spicer: There are strict regulations covering SO2 emissions, and the intention is that SO2 will be reduced by

    5
    60 per cent. by the year 2,003. We have always made it clear that there are no import controls at present and that there will be none in the future. Unlike many Opposition Members, we are completely confident that the core business of the British coal industry will be the production of electricity. We believe that that is evidenced by the vast amounts of money that we have been putting into the industry and the response that we are getting from the work force.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that a station of that size will be commissioned only if the generator has a long-term contract to supply? Does he further agree that the reverse side of that is that the generator will need a long-term contract for the supply of the basic fuel? I suggest that such long-term security will come about only if the coal used is coal produced by British Coal, and that may involve the Government knocking a few heads together. May I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether he feels in an aggressive mood?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes some extremely good points about the reasons why a British electricity industry would wish to buy from an indigenous supplier such as British Coal, especially as the industry has very good coal at its disposal. My hon. Friend asked me to join the negotiations that are taking place between British Coal and the electricity industry. I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that we wish those negotiations to be conducted freely between the two sides. That is why it was quite wrong for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to run round town this morning saying that we have predetermined plans for British Coal.
    Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Minister will answer the question that he failed to answer this morning. Is it the case that, as matters stand at present, the electricity industry will order 15 million tonnes less from British Coal next year, despite being offered it at market prices? Even if the Minister feels no concern about the effect that that will have on jobs, on the balance of payments, on the midlands economy and on the future of electricity supply in his capacity as an Energy Minister, does he not feel even a twinge of conscience, as a member of the Conservative party, towards those UDM members whose support the Government was happy to exploit during the miners' dispute and whose reward may now be a P45?
    Mr. Spicer: It is a matter of great interest to the Government that the hon. Gentleman should suddenly discover the UDM. It is a little rich for Labour Members suddenly to be defending the UDM. I have already made it quite clear to the House—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would join me in this—that the nation owes a great deal to the UDM, and we do not need to be taught that lesson by the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about our responsibilities for the future of energy in Britain. We have an interest in this matter, and we take a balanced view of it. We have an interest in ensuring that electricity prices are as low as possible—and that involves fuel prices—and at the same time in ensuring that we have a thriving indigenous coal industry. That is why we have spent £2 million every working day on developing our coal industry.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his proposals for employees in the electricity industry being offered a stake in their own companies.
    Mr. Parkinson: There will be attractive terms to ensure that employees can acquire shares in the successor companies. Decisions on the details of the offers that will be made to employees will be taken nearer the time of the sales.
    Mr. Thurnham: When allocating shares, will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to employees to take up their full individual entitlement, to spread the benefits of share ownership as widely as possible?
    Mr. Parkinson: We think that it is very important for individual employees of the industry to have their own shareholding. We therefore intend to put together a package of discounts and encouragements which we hope will encourage more than 90 per cent. of employees to take up their shares, as has happened with previous privatisations.
    Mr. Foulkes: However welcome the proposal may be in principle, will this not remain merely a cosmetic exercise unless the Secretary of State is willing to ensure that the majority of shares go to people who have staked their lives in the electricity industry, rather than to big business, which happens to have the capital to put into shares but which has no real long-term interest in the industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the rest of the nation should make a present of something up to £10 billion to the 131,000 people who work in the industry. It is a national asset. The employees receive a proper wage and salary, but we want them to have the chance to have a stake in the industry and we intend to ensure that they do.
    Mr. Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply on this matter. Has he given any thought to setting up employee share ownership plans trusts—ESOPS trusts—as part of the offer for sale of the companies as a way of ensuring that employee share ownership is ongoing?
    Mr. Parkinson: That is a possibility that has been put to us. I have not taken a final decision nor have the companies, but we are slightly dubious about collective ownership in this case. We believe that, initially, the employees should become individual shareholders in their own right.
    Mr. Pike: Rather than just giving the employees a stake in the industry if it must be privatised, why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the opportunity, while the Bill goes through the House, to enable them to have a say in the industry by making provisions for employee participation at board level on the various boards? The right hon. Gentleman could do that and he could ensure that the employees are allowed to elect their own representatives on to those boards.
    Mr. Parkinson: We do not believe that trade union representation is necessarily the same as representation by the labour force. We do not believe in the institutionalised representation of the work force on the board. We want

    7
    individual members of the work force to have shareholdings, to go to the AGM and to use their votes to vote on to the board directors of their choice.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of emissions of Co2 by the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations in 1970 and 1987; and what was the amount of electricity supplied in the same years.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: CEGB emissions of carbon dioxide in 1970 and 1987 were 184 million tonnes and 182 million tonnes respectively. Over the same period electricity supplies by the CEGB rose by 23 per cent.; The amount of Co2 emitted by the CEGB per unit of electricity production has fallen over the period by 20 per cent.
    Mr. Amess: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the CEGB has no plans to increase emissions of carbon dioxide by 25 per cent., as rumoured in some quarters?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. A number of predictions have been made about future Co2 emissions, but they depend upon what assumptions are made about demand or the future make-up of electricity generation. For instance, a continuing switch from coal to gas or an increase in nuclear power will reduce Co2 levels considerably.
    Mr. Anderson: Surely the best way of reducing Co2 is by conservation, by alternative energy means and by ensuring that we can green our cities and plant trees on derelict land to fix the Co22 in the biomass.
    Mr. Spicer: As we discussed earlier, undoubtedly one way to reduce CO2 emissions is to engage in conservation measures. We certainly intend that that should be the case. Our main policy to combat CO2 emissions however, has been to encourage a variety of non-CO2 emitting fuels, such as nuclear and renewables and reduced CO2 emitting fuels such as gas and clean coal technologies. Since the Opposition oppose most of those measures, especially nuclear power, it is fair to ask them what they propose to do about it.
    Mr. Rost: In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can my hon. Friend confirm the rumour that the Government are, after all, to introduce amendments in the other place to the Electricity Bill to strengthen the obligations to improve energy efficiency and to provide incentives for the production of electricity combined with the marketing of the heat?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has been pressing the case for combined heat and power for many years and with increasing effect. He will know that a number of measures associated with the Bill greatly improve the chances of CHP and will particularly ensure that it has a fair and even playing field in comparison with other forms of electricity. That is the only assurance—it is a good one—that I can give my hon. Friend about the terms of the Bill.
    Mr. Morgan: Some 10 days ago a seminar was held at 10 Downing street on the greenhouse effect. Can the Minister or the Secretary of State confirm that if the Government chose to use the argument that the only way to hold back the greenhouse effect is to switch to nuclear
    8
    power, 24 nuclear power stations would have to be built by the year 2020—something the British planning process could not possibly provide? Do they agree that it is shocking that when the alternative proposal, supported by most scientific and technical opinion—that energy conservation is a far better way to hold back the greenhouse effect—needs to be pressed on the Prime Minister Jimmy Goldsmith, a friendly neighbourhood billionaire, must be called in and asked to use his influence with the Prime Minister, rather than the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman answered his own question about the planning constraints involved in the construction of 24 nuclear power stations. We envisage that there will be four new PWRs and that each one, with a capacity of 1·2 GW, will reduce CO2 emissions by about 6 million tonnes per year, or about 3 per cent. of the total emissions. That is pretty good.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that there seems to be a notion about that if a Labour Government come to power, coal will be burnt extensively without any adverse effect on the atmosphere? Will he confirm that 1 million tonnes of coal burnt will produce 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in power, and that chemistry is impartial in terms of politics?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend's logic is impeccable as, I am sure, are his figures. Certainly, the logical implication of the Labour party's policy is that, for the foreseeable future, it intends to base the entirety of our energy on coal technology. That will have a grave impact on CO2, emissions.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has plans to increase the size of its nuclear power programme.
    Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is apparently determined to rely entirely on nuclear power in the future to combat the greenhouse effect, would it not be more realistic to start installing flue scrubbers in coal-fired power stations such as Fiddler's Ferry as an additional weapon in our fight against the greenhouse effect?
    Mr. Parkinson: At the end of last week, the Prime Minister repeated the Government's position, which is that we wish to see four PWRs built to replace the Magnox stations that will be phased out between now and the year 2000. The Prime Minister also said—and it is a remark that I have repeatedly made in the House—that she believes that the argument is gradually turning in favour of nuclear power. Therefore, that number may turn out to be the minimum, but the Government's present plans envisage four PWRs being built.
    Mr. Morgan: Oh, a minimum?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have said that before, too. The hon. Gentleman should listen occasionally. The first orders have been placed for Drax and we are committed to a reduction of 60 per cent. in sulphur dioxide emissions by

    9
    the year 2003. That will mean more retrofitting and it is for the CEGB and its successor companies to decide which stations will be retrofitted.
    Mr. Jack: In view of my right hon. Friend's previous and excellent answer, what specific measures is the Central Electricity Generating Board taking to ensure that the existing, advanced gas-cooled reactors give the maximum output?
    Mr. Parkinson: A Labour Government originally ordered them and we have presided over their development. Therefore, it should be encouraging to all hon. Members to know that at long last the AGRs appear to be working better. Last year was their best year for production. Torness and Heysham B have every possibility of being successful, therefore, good progress is being made.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Department made any real assessment of the cost to the consumer of its programme of nuclear energy? Is the Secretary of State aware that Torness, which came on stream in Scotland on Saturday, led to £2 billion debts for the South of Scotland electricity board which, along with the servicing of that debt, will pass on to the consumer a bill of about £170 per year? Does the Secretary of State accept that nuclear energy is unwelcome to the population, and that Saturday was an example of the great white empress opening a great white elephant?
    Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Lady on thinking up that well-thought-out remark so spontaneously. We believe that nuclear power has justified its existence in this country on at least three occasions in the past 15 years: during the oil price explosions and during the miners' strike. I did not notice the critics of nuclear power complaining that their lights came on even though the NUM did its best to turn them off. There is a price to be paid for security, and we are prepared to pay it.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most dangerous things we can do when judging the greenhouse effect and its policy implications is to oversimplify the whole matter? If world reductions of carbon dioxide are to be achieved in the amounts that science suggests, we shall need every contribution we can get, not only from energy conservation and efficiency and a reduction of demand for electricity, but from nuclear power, too.
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one suggests that nuclear power is an alternative to conservation or that we should stop conservation. No one suggests that there is only one answer.
    Our record on improved energy efficiency is extremely good, so we say exactly what my hon. Friend said. The world cannot afford to turn its back on any means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, because they present a major threat to us all.
    Mr. Barron: If the Secretary of State has no plans to increase nuclear power, is he happy that his diversity argument will also be used now about foreign coal? The question that we asked earlier is important. We understand that negotiations are going on for 15 million tonnes of foreign coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department happy that that should take place in the next two months—yes or no?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am not in a position to settle the negotiations between the CEGB and British Coal; they are going on now. Opposition Members do not realise that they are being used by proponents of one side of the argument to prevent proper negotiations from taking place. We have given the two sides permission to negotiate freely and we have made it clear that we shall not dragoon them. We have also put the British coal industry into a better position in which to compete than ever before and we believe that, based on its recent performance, it will get most of the business. We do not accept that British Coal can find customers only if they are dragooned into buying from it.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are talking a load of scientific nonsense and that it is high time that Labour Members learnt from Socialist France that nuclear power is a positive and effective way of generating electricity?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot see why my hon. Friend felt it necessary to qualify his "nonsense" remark with the adjective "scientific".

    Offshore Installations
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many offshore installations have shut down in the last 12 months; and what was the total loss of production of (a) oil and (b) gas.
    Mr. Parkinson: Seventeen million tonnes of oil production has been deferred, not lost, as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster and other accidents in the past year. Apart from Piper Alpha, the operators expect the majority of fields currently out of production to be back on stream by the end of this month and the remainder by September. The loss, or deferment, of gas production was minimal; the total capacity of the North sea and Morecambe hay remained well in excess of demand.
    Mr. Doran: That is an appalling record. Does not the Minister think it ironic that the Tern Eider field is being opened almost as we speak, yet these fields are being shut down because of the closure of the Brent pipeline system? Given the serious consequences of these failures of safety —the loss of life and the effect on the economy—does he accept now that safety in the North sea is far too important to be left to the Department of Energy?
    Mr. Parkinson: That exciting list of statements led nowhere, but it allowed the hon. Gentleman to run one of his favourite hobby horses at the end, which was interesting. No one could draw his conclusion. Until the day after Piper Alpha, not a single Labour Member had ever asked me a question about North sea safety, and I was never asked about the better performance of Norway, for the simple reason that its record until that time was a great deal worse than ours.
    There are lessons to be learnt and we intend to learn them. My inspectors take their jobs extremely seriously.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Health and Safety Executive and Commission have a pretty good record of work generally? That being so, why, after all these incidents, does he resist so strongly extending their powers properly to cover this whole area?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that our present arrangements were the direct result of a study by the Burgoyne committee set up by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That committee reported to us and recommended the arrangements that we now have. The arrangements were put in place as a result of the study by an independent committee. We have already made it clear that if Lord Cullen of Ashbourne feels that he wishes to make any comments on those arrangements and to express a view about seeing them changed, we shall be happy to consider it.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the accidents in the North sea bring home to consumers the question of interruptible supplies of gas. Will he consider suggesting to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that if we are to retain a horticultural industry the increase in gas prices as a result of the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should be looked at again? Will he have discussions about that matter with the chairman of British Gas?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, my Department has no standing in this matter. It is now a matter between British Gas, the regulator and the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for consumer affairs.
    Mr. Haynes: Who is responsible?
    Mr. Parkinson: Not the hon. Gentleman, thank God. I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State consider that the Burgoyne report was issued 14 years ago? The Labour Energy Minister at the time decided not to bring energy and oil work within the scope of the Health and Safety Commission. That was a long time ago, and in view of the accidents that have taken place, is the Secretary of State saying that he is completely happy with the arrangement made following Burgoyne? Would it not be better to think again?
    Mr. Parkinson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that Burgoyne was 10 years later than he suggests. The arrangements have not been in place since 1971. I think they have been in place since 1981. We have already made it clear that we are not interested in defending the status quo. We are interested in North sea safety. Lord Cullen is looking at the whole background to the Piper Alpha disaster, and if he makes any recommendations we shall take them very seriously indeed.

    Nuclear Fusion
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is currently available to his Department on low-temperature nuclear fusion.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Different groups of scientists claim to have observed nuclear fusion in simple apparatus at room temperature. Experiments are under way by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and in laboratories and universities worldwide, to reproduce and understand the effects that have been reported.
    Mr. Fishburn: Will my hon. Friend consider diverting some of the huge amounts of Government money that are spent on research into high-temperature fusion into low-temperature or cold fusion, on the understanding that although there is no clear result yet, any such result would unlock a source of energy which would be vastly cheaper, safer and more usable for future generations than the present nuclear fusion?
    Mr. Spicer: We have yet fully to assess the findings of Professors Pons and Fleischman. However, I understand that early attempts to reproduce any form of nuclear reaction have been disappointing. Some explanations suggest that the two scientists created a chemical rather than a nuclear reaction. Scientists at Harwell have yet to give their conclusions on the matter and until they do it is difficult for me to argue that any extra resources should be diverted to this research project.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many nuclear power stations he envisages being decommissioned in the next five years; and what provision is being made for the eventual demolition and disposal of the constituent parts.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Decommissioning of nuclear power stations is an operational matter for the CEGB. The board makes appropriate provision for decommissioning in its annual accounts. This amounted to £568 million at 31 March 1988.
    Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, inevitably, when power stations are decommissioned there is radioactive waste, and that it is only logical that Conservative Members who support nuclear energy should also support the creation of repositories for nuclear waste? So that new orders can be placed for further power stations, will my hon. Friend ensure that a site for a repository is found quickly, so that it can be built without any undue delay?
    Mr. Spicer: Like my hon. Friend, we recognise the need for progress to be made in the development of a repository, but I am sure that he will agree that this must be on the basis of a proper assessment of the safety and environmental factors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed on 21 March that the Government have accepted Nirex's recommendations that the repository should be in the form of a mine under the land, and that further investigation should be carried on at Sellafield and Dounreay. This work is expected to take about 18 months to complete and until then, Nirex will not be in a position to submit proposals or to seek the necessary approvals through the normal planning procedures.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions since his appointment he has answered oral questions in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tony Newton): By the time that I have finished this sentence, two.
    Mr. Cohen: Should the Chancellor be abolished as obsolete, or would he prefer more questions to be addressed to him—for example, questions about the appointment of magistrates to enforce the poll tax? will not his JP appointee be making large sums out of the poll tax while clipping the wages and benefits of, and perhaps sending to prison, people who will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds? Is not the best way forward the abolition of both the Chancellor's post and the poll tax?
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would welcome more questions like that one. I would welcome any assistance that the hon. Gentleman cares to give me in fulfilling my duty and my clear purpose in ensuring a fair and balanced administration of justice, and in appointing magistrates, in the areas for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very jealous of his Duchy. Can he explain to the House how it is that the European Community has acquired competence over the quality of water in Blackpool? I should have thought that this was a matter for the people of Blackpool, if they want to secure a decent tourism trade, or, if not, for this House. Could my hon. Friend tell the House how we are to get that competence back?
    Mr. Newton: I should perhaps first make it clear that it is not my Duchy but that of Her Majesty the Queen, who is also the Duke of Lancaster. As to the quality of water, I would regard my interest as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as being the same as that of anyone concerned with any other part of the country, which is to ensure a high quality of water. That is the aim of the Government's policies.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Women Employees
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many women are employed by the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): There are 139 women on the Church Commissioners' staff.
    Mr. Marshall: Is there not scope for women to serve the Church in other ways? Is it not high time that a decision was made over women priests, especially as women are effective preachers and are likely to be even more conscientious than men in their pastoral duties?
    Mr. Alison: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's championing of the cause of women in the Church of England ministry. He will know that there are already about 500 women deacons in post in the Church of England, and they do marvellous work. However, the ordination of women measure is unlikely to come before the General Synod until 1992, which will be after the next General Synod is elected in 1990.

    Employees
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is (a) the salary of the highest paid official employed by the Church Commissioners. (b) the average per capita salary of employees and (c) the average clerical stipend.
    Mr. Alison: The highest salary paid to a full-time officer of the Church Commissioners is currently £50,600, equivalent to Civil Service grade 2. The average salary of the Commissioners' 350 full-time employees is £14,800 and the average stipend of clergy of incumbent status in the Church of England is £8,900 plus largely tax-free benefits in kind averaging around £5,750.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some inequity? Bearing in mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury is paid £31,870 and the Bishop of Durham £22,745, plus palace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."' Some of my colleagues say, "Too much." Will my right hon. Friend undertake to persuade the Church Commissioners to examine these matters with a view to considering whether they are using their assets equitably and fairly, bearing in mind that the parishes alone will pay the new general secretary of the Synod £50,000? What about setting up advice centres for bishops such as the Bishop of Aston, who has fallen on his nose in a rather tragic way while trying to organise a visit for Archbishop Tutu? Should not the Bishop of Aston have help arid could not the commissioners provide such help?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must keep these matters in reasonable proportion. It costs about £400 million a year to keep the Church of England running. That sum is largely contributed by people from the parishes, as well as past donors and benefactors. The scale of renumeration for the top administrators, either in the General Synod or the Church Commissioners, is not out of scale given the extent of their responsibilities and the budget that they have to administer.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Commission last met; and what was discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission last met on 6 December when, as I have previously informed the House, the main business was consideration of the estimates of the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1989–90. The House may wish to know that the Commission's next meeting will be held tomorrow.
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the request of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office is examining the Government's advertising expenditure and the abuse or use of money to further the Government's aims. I now read in the newspapers that the National Audit Office is considering an advertising campaign to polish up its own image. Will

    15
    the hon. Gentleman ensure that the National Audit Office campaign is better value for money for the public than the current Government campaign?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot comment on the Government's publicity. I understand that the National Audit Office has recently engaged the services of consultants to give advice on its external communications strategy, especially to assist in its recruitment effort in a highly competitive market. If I may say so, it is essential that the National Audit Office should be able to call upon good and qualified staff in the same way that every other major organisations can.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he or the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee receives any communication from whatever quarter suggesting a matter for inquiry by the National Audit Office, or making allegations of fraud, corruption, bribery or anything else, it is absolutely the standard practice on receipt of such communications for them to be referred directly to the NAO? Does my hon. Friend agree that when The Observer attaches such great importance to allegations sent by a senior privy councillor to the NAO about commissions paid as part of the Tornado contract, it wildly exaggerates the significance of something that the Chairman of the PAC does with every allegation of this sort that he receives?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I can only confirm that all serious matters concerned with fraud and allegations of that sort are referred to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have no knowledge of the specific matters that my hon. Friend has mentioned and they would seem to be more matters for the Chairman of the PAC.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman ask that the issue of articles that appear in The Observer relating to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee be placed on the agenda of the Commission? Is he aware that The Observer has fabricated articles about the proceedings of our Committee? It has been warned that what it is saying is inaccurate yet it has persisted in printing. Even as late—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a matter for the PAC or the Commission?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Commission, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the credibility of the Committee.
    Even as late as yesterday The Observer published a leader which reiterated mistakes and falsifications that it has published previously.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not like to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that the Public Accounts Commission deals with very mundane matters such as salaries, terms and conditions of the staff of the National Audit Office, and so on, whereas the exciting things go on in the Public Accounts Committee of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is Chairman, and who is in a better position to answer such questions than I am.
    Mr. Marlow: Subsequent to the second question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), does my right hon. Friend agree that if by spending money on advertising the sale of privatisation share issues, the
    16
    price of those issues is increased by more than the cost of the advertising, that is good marketing? If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is against marketing, why does he sport that wretched red rose all the time?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Such matters are far outside the very mundane considerations with which the Public Accounts Commission has to deal. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard my hon. Friend's question and will answer it in due course.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Private Members' Bills
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many private Members' Bills presented (a) as a result of a Member being in the first 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills and (b) behind the Chair have been enacted in each of the past five Sessions; what were the figures for 1979–80 and 1969–70; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): As the full answer is in the form of a table and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report. I would add, however, that in each of the Sessions mentioned in the question the number of private Members' ballot Bills enacted has exceeded the number enacted following introduction under Standing Order No. 58.
    Mr. Greenway: Has not the time come to devolve more power to the Back Benchers of this House, bearing in mind that there are about 4,000 laws on the statute book, almost exclusively contributed—if that is the right word—by the Government? In particular, could the private Members' Bill procedure be more open, and would my right hon. Friend support the requirement that those right hon. and hon. Members who object to private Members' Bills stand in their place and say "I object" loud and clear?
    Mr. Wakeham: Procedural changes such as my hon. Friend suggests are for the Select Committee on Procedure to examine and it is not for me to make off-the-cuff suggestions at the Dispatch Box. Objection at 2.30 pm on Friday, which is contentious, is objection to a Bill being given a Second Reading without debate. That point is significant and should be borne in mind.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more private Members' Bills would stand a chance of progressing on to the statute book if non-contentious, non-party-political Bills having all-party support—such as the Control of Litter (Fines) Bill—were not objected to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is a member of a political party that says it cares about the environment?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I appreciate my hon. Friend's disappointment, but the procedures are well known to right hon. and hon. Members, many of whom accept that no one should object if a Bill dealing with a contentious matter is opposed at 2·30 pm on a Friday, when its principles have not been debated. However, I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House

    17
    would be supportive of any measures to tackle the problems of litter—as are the Government, subject of course to consideration of their practicalities.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the bulk of Bills to which objection is made from a sedentary position every Friday are objected to by a Government Whip who is deployed to do that—usually the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that it would be better if right hon. and hon. Members were required to rise and declare their identity when objecting to a Bill?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman seeks to squeeze in a party point where there is no party point to be made.
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) did so.
    Mr. Wakeham: That is right, but I expect the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to be different from that of right hon. and hon. Members who are disappointed that their own Bills will not pass. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the procedure for objecting to Bills under the present Government is exactly the same as it was under the Labour Government.
    The information is as follows:

    Ballot Bills

    Bills presented under SO 58'

    1969–70

    5

    4

    1979–80

    5

    3

    1983–84

    10

    1

    1984–85

    11

    4

    1985–86

    11

    7

    1986–87

    6

    5

    1987–88

    9

    2

    1 Not including Lords Bills taken charge of under SO 58(3)

    Private Bill Procedures
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he now has any plans to recommend changes to the private Bill procedures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: We had a useful debate on this subject on 20 April, during which I said that the views expressed would require detailed and considered reflection. As a result I will be considering with the usual channels and others the scope for an agreed package of procedural changes which might be brought forward in time for the next Session.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is recognised on both sides of the House that there is now widespread abuse of private Bill procedure to get through legislation that would otherwise fall foul of planning laws and inquiries at local government level? In some instances, junkets are being arranged. Members of Parliament—on one occasion, many Tory Members—are called upon to vote and then go to a beanfeast. Almost the entire Cabinet went into the Lobby to support the Associated British Ports (No. 2) and North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bills, including the Prime Minister, who turned up in her carpet slippers at 10 o'clock.
    18
    Surely when there is that kind of widespread abuse it is high time that things were altered. Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman was preparing to give some consideration to the matter in our debate a few weeks ago, but the Prime Minister coincidentally answered a question about 10 minutes before he rose to speak and he changed his brief?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers, but, having done so, he should have read the correction that appeared a few days later.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the private Bill procedure. I know that he popped in For only a few minutes on the occasion that he mentioned, and therefore did not give the matter his usual careful attention. Any private Bill would fail if it sought to give additional powers to the Government, because it would no longer be a private Bill; a private Bill that seeks to give additional powers to a commercial undertaking is a matter for the House to decide. The Government see no case for opposing such a Bill unless it conflicts with Government policy, which does not apply to the Bills referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the case of a private Bill to be introduced reasonably soon, there is considerable disquiet at the possibility of compulsory purchase procedures being used for the purchase of more land than the proposers strictly need? There is a danger of that land being sold on at a profit, when any profit rightly belongs to those whose land has been compulsorily expropriated. When he considers private Bill procedures, will my right hon. Friend take that carefully into account?
    Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill that he has in mind will probably be debated at length and he will no doubt make his point then.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House accept that the debate to which he referred revealed widespread agreement on both sides of the House about three matters: first, that a private Bill's preamble must be approved; secondly, that it must not raise issues relating to public policy and purpose; and, thirdly, that preliminary proceedings of an appropriate kind should be completed before the Bill is presented?
    Is there no possibility of such criteria being incorporated in the Standing Orders for private business? Would that not have the advantage of avoiding future legislation on the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider looking at the Standing Orders with a view to implementing what I consider to be a widespread view on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with part, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already said that. I will consider those matters. I agree that there have been instances of promoters trying it on, but that is not to say that I think that the private Bill procedure should never deal with planning matters. When statutory changes are to be made, it seems to me sensible that some planning matters associated with them should be dealt with at the same time.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private Bill procedure is more democratic than

    19
    any planning inquiry? Does he consider it significant that Opposition Members wish to give up powers and cede influence to planning inspectors?
    Mr. Wakeham: I would not like to draw a comparison, but those who say that the private Bill procedure is necessarily less fair than a planning inquiry are selling the private Bill procedure short. I believe that by and large it does a very good job.
    Mr. Foot: Since it seems to be part of the right hon. Gentleman's original complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) turned up a little late on one of these occasions, could he not arrange that we would never start private Members' business without my hon. Friend being given the chance to be here to assist in the proceedings?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is one of the most constructive suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the House for a long time.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Surely the Lord President agrees that in the case of the Felixstowe dock Bill the whole thing was a fix. The promoters of the Bill were very large contributors to the Tory party. The Member of Parliament for the area
    20
    was then the chairman of the Tory party. The champagne reception at the end was quite clearly organised as a treat for those who supported the Bill. Surely the Lord President agrees that our Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure said that there was widespread abuse of the system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out. Apart from any other consideration, objectors to Bills are at a grave disadvantage compared with the promoters. Furthermore, the taxpayer is losing vast sums of money. The promoters are being charged only a very small amount of money for bringing their Bills before the House instead of the £10,000 that each promoter should be paying, as recommended by the Committee.
    Mr. Wakeham: To take the hon. Lady's last point, which is the only point on which I agree with her, the charges need to be looked at. That is one of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I reject entirely her other suggestion. One of the reasons for the Select Committee's report was that it was inconvenient for certain hon. Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. That presented us with a problem. I think that the hon. Lady knows about the point to which I refer.

Rose Theatre, Southwark
3.31 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes(by private notice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Rose theatre.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Archaeological work on the site of the Rose theatre has been in progress for some five months. This work has been financed by the developers, Imry Merchant Developers plc, under guidance from English Heritage and the Museum of London. It has become clear in the light of the most recent discoveries that the remains are of greater importance than was previously thought.
As a result, the developers and their architect have been working urgently on possible ways of ensuring that the excavated remains are properly preserved and displayed to the public. I invited them to a discussion this morning, together with English Heritage, which has advised us throughout.
I am very glad to tell the House that Imry has agreed to delay work on the theatre site for up to one month. This is to enable it and its architect to work with English Heritage and with us on the various options. The roof will go back over the site immediately so that the excavated remains are fully protected while these discussions continue.
English Heritage, assisted by the Government, will be contributing financially to the cost of the delay.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for and welcome the Secretary of State's statement. However, I should like to ask him about additional matters that still give cause for concern.
Is the Secretary of State in a position now to schedule the site, as he has been asked to do? Has he insisted that when the developers redesign the building they should avoid pile driving on the site, through the theatre itself, so that the theatre may be preserved intact? Has he agreed with the developers that from the time the building is redesigned and built there will be public access to the site of the Rose theatre so that people will continue to be able to see it?
As of this moment, the concerns are the guarding of the site, the activity on the immediately neighbouring site—which, I ask the Secretary of State to accept, is literally within inches of the edge of the Rose theatre—and the belief that the redesigned building must be agreeable not just to English Heritage but to the archaeologists of the Museum of London. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give those assurances.
This morning, the people and the developers reached an agreement. I hope that the people, the developers and the Government will again be able in a month's time to reach an agreement that will preserve the Rose theatre intact for all to see.
Mr. Ridley: It would be inappropriate to take the question of scheduling any further as it is a matter for English Heritage. However, in the words that the hon. Gentleman used in his Adjournment debate:
"A breathing space is needed for.….the planners in Southwark and English Heritage"—[Official Report, 9 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 838.]
22
That is exactly what we have provided. It would be inappropriate not to allow a period during which, we hope, a satisfactory result can be achieved.
The breathing space also applies to the hon. Gentleman's two other points about pile driving and public access to the theatre. Obviously, those will be vital matters in the pending discussions, although I cannot forecast any decisions. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about the outcome of the discussions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we all hope that not only will the theatre be preserved—there was never any question about its preservation—but that it will be made permanently available to the public I cannot forecast whether that emerges from the time that the Government have bought to allow the options to be considered, although I hope that it will be the case.
Sir Bernard Braine: Although my right hon. Friend's intervention is to be warmly welcomed, is he aware that all who care for our English heritage have been gravely disturbed by what has happened in the case of the Rose theatre? Does he agree that a month is not much time in which to reach a satisfactory conclusion? During that time, will he bend his mind to devising some effective and lawful way of ensuring that when such ruins are uncovered during development work they can be properly preserved rather than hidden beneath a mountain of earth and concrete?
Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is a little hard on the existing arrangements. During the past year, developers in various parts of the country have spent £14 million on facilitating archaeological investigations and the recording of what has been found. The short period that has been bought will not only save money but will concentrate minds on finding the best solution—although I cannot forecast what it may be—as quickly as possible. I am sure that it is possible for all that it is necessary to do to be clone within that time.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Although I welcome the one month allowed for a solution to be found, does the Secretary of State recognise that what he has told the House today does not constitute a solution but is merely a buying of time? The Under-Secretary said last week that the Government's policy on conservation was to bulldoze the site and cover it with hardcore and sand, which would preserve the site for future generations. I trust that that is no longer the Government's policy and that what they now mean by "conservation" is very different.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that people throughout the country find that the market forces of building yet another office block on the site to be wholly at odds with the preservation of a unique part of our theatrical culture, and that the two are incompatible? Will he visit the site in the company of myself and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) so that he may see it and feel its historical importance? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will say clearly to him that, although the delay of one month is welcome, the country expects and demands of the Government that the site be preserved, not for one month but for future generations?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misconceptions. The backfilling was never intended

23
to commit the site to below the basement; it was intended as a means of preserving it while plant and other necessary machinery moved across it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, because of the one-month delay, backfilling will not commence. I believe that there is dispute about it, but many archaeologists believe that the best way to preserve the site for the short and temporary period of construction is to immerse the remains in sand, which will be removed later.
The hon. Gentleman is not right to ascribe the situation to market forces. It might well be that the great prosperity that the Government have brought about has caused far more development and, therefore, far more exposure of sites; but that is not a charge to lay against economic success. The developers have behaved with impeccable propriety. They have delayed a long time already and are prepared to delay further—at great expense to themselves. They have co-operated entirely with the archaeologists and with my suggestion this morning.
I shall certainly visit the site, but, if I may, I shall choose my time and my company.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the buying of time is extremely important and should be warmly and unreservedly welcomed by everyone? Will he acknowledge the significant part that has been played behind the scenes by our hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important ruin stands a much better chance of being well protected for posterity if it is sheltered and shielded by the umbrella of a strong building and is not exposed to the elements, as is suggested by some thoughtless people?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has played in this matter, and I am grateful to him. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) says about the fragility of the remains and the need to protect them from rain, frost and snow. I am certain that the best answer is to have a solid roof over them for their preservation.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome the breathing space. What options will be considered during this time?
Mr. Ridley: That is not entirely a matter for me. It is a question for the developers and their architect. They must try different designs and different ways of treating the finished product, so to speak, so that access, marketing and presentation of the ruins can be well arranged, and work in conjuction with English Heritage, which will give the architectural advice they need. What the result of that will be, and whether it can be 100 per cent. successful, I do not know, but it may well cost more money than the present scheme. In that case, I suspect that the public may like to consider whether they want to contribute so that the scheme can be altered in such a way as to enable the site to be preserved.
I should make it clear that the Government's commitment finishes with this statement.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest as-a-member of The Theatres Trust. I associate myself with the representations that he
24
has received. I am sure that we all want to express our appreciation for the breathing space. The work done by my right hon. Friend, his ministerial colleagues, the Minister for the Arts and hon. Members on both sides of the House has been constructive and helped to point the way ahead. Finding an answer to an urgent national problem to preserve our heritage is a challenge to public and private sources.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I strongly agree with what he has said. There is an opportunity here. The move was necessary because greater knowledge of the site has been obtained literally in the past two or three days. Recent discoveries make the site more important than was previously thought. It is for that special reason that, on this one occasion, it seems right that the Government should finance the delay so that the forces that are determined to preserve the site have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. John Fraser: Let us hope that the Secretary of State is not like Oscar Wilde, who believed that where archaeology begins art ends. The right hon. Gentleman's remark that his Department will not be involved in any further financial commitment suggests that he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Mr. Ridley: I claim dissimilarity from Oscar Wilde in more than one respect. My statement pledges Government money for the delay which I have announced, but it goes no further than that.
Mr. Robert Banks: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that over the centuries the rich history of Southwark has been lost largely because of property development and changes in the pattern of society, but latterly especially by the policies of Southwark council which have almost obliterated the history of that area, not least by its intransigent reaction to the application to build a replica Globe theatre? Is it not an important discovery, and will my right hon. Friend give earnest consideration to classifying the remains of the Rose theatre as a national monument?
Mr. Ridley: The rich history of Southwark has been found rather than lost by the developers there at present. It is not right to condemn Southwark council, because I believe and hope that it will co-operate, as it will be asked, in the month's "window" that we now have to find a solution. I am sure that Southwark council will do that. The time has not yet come to consider the status of the monument or what might be done to preserve it. We must allow a scheme to be found first.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the Secretary of State aware that his first answer this afternoon was the best statement I have ever heard him make in the House? [Interruption.] Well, it was a bit better than most of his statements. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now decide that the Government have no responsibility for the site. Surely, if the site is part of our English heritage, which obviously it is, the Secretary of State as an artist—and a very fine artist in painting—must recognise that we have to preserve in every possible way the arts of the nation. Therefore, the preservation of a fine, original theatre-is vital in the interests of the cultural development of the nation for our children. I ask the right hon.

25
Gentleman to reconsider his reply about the Government's role in preserving the site and the financial aid that they must give in order to do that.
Mr. Ridley: If today's statement was the best statement the hon. Gentleman has heard me make, he cannot have been here very much. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is given an oportunity to subscribe to any fund which might be set up for this purpose.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We are talking about the theatre as if it were a building, and it is not; we are talking about the site as if it were ruins, and it is not—it is footings. Is not the life of the theatre composed of actors? Is not the living theatre more important? If every time the footings of some building that experts tell us was a theatre, a brothel or anything else had to be preserved, London would still be composed of Roman ruins. Are we not concerned with the living and the living theatre? If we have £10 million or £20 million to spend, let us spend it on the living theatre and not on the footings of something that looks like a disused mine.
Mr. Ridley: This is not art, but archaeology, which is a different but equally important science. If we were to deny archaeology, we would deny Stonehenge. It is not a living theatre, but at least it is a monument which my hon. Friend would respect, although it is even older than the Rose theatre.
Mr. Clive Soley: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's late, reluctant intervention, but it will also be deeply worried that he has said that he no longer intends to be involved in this matter. The House has ways of bringing him before it to ensure that he remains involved.
What other country would be prepared to bury the heritage that we link to Shakespeare's name—a name which is famous throughout the world and throughout time? The only answer that the Secretary of State has is two of sand and one of cement.
If the Secretary of State had followed the spirit of the 1987 report of the Select Committee on the Environment, he would not have been forced to intervene as a result of the all-night activity of actors, the constituency Member for Parliament and members of the parliamentary Labour party; he would have initiated the action himself. Will he do so in future?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that it was only in the past few days that English Heritage advised that the quality of these remains was far greater than it originally thought. That has changed the position. It is right to respond to my advisers at English Heritage on a matter of this sort. I did not say that the Department would not be involved. The Under-Secretary of State and I will certainly remain involved. I said that the statement did not go beyond the financial commitment to the delay. That is all.
I would never take on the hon. Gentleman as a builder's labourer. If he did one of cement and two of sand, he would be wasting cement on an unprecedented scale.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today is for private Members' motions, and we must move on.

Kurdish Refugees
3.51 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a matter which is urgent, specific and important and which should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, namely,
"the arrival yesterday at Heathrow airport of three planes containing Kurdish refugees fleeing from Turkey, and the Government's response."
Between 8 million and 10 million Kurds in Turkey are not, effectively, officially recognised. They live in a war zone. The Kurds who arrived yesterday are asking for asylum on the ground of increasing personal and political persecution which has taken place since the military coup in 1980. Since August 1984, the Turkish security services have engaged in counter-insurgency activities against the Kurdish Workers' party. In addition, vast numbers of Kurds are threatened by deforestation, damming and flooding as part of a programme against them by the Government.
The refugees who arrived yesterday, together with hundreds who have arrived in the past 10 days, have all been directed by the Home Office to the London borough of Hackney and to one address in Kingsland road. It is a bizarre operation about which the chief executive has written to Sir Clive Whitmore, permanent under-secretary at the Home Office.
The need for an urgent debate is fivefold. First, we want to discuss how the Government intend to handle and expedite the applications for political asylum.
Secondly, we want to know why a major international crisis is being directed by the Home Office on to one borough and what resources it intends to provide local churches, community groups, the Kurdish Workers Association and Hackevi to deal with this major emergency. The council could be bankrupted within months in trying to deal with the impending homeless crisis.
Thirdly, the leaders of refugee groups have told me that the Home Office voluntary service unit is being unhelpful. They believe that Ministers are using the crisis as a prelude to introducing visa controls for people from Turkey.
Fourthly, we need to discuss the absurdity of allowing Turkey into the European Economic Community while thousands are fleeing the country for want of democracy. Ozal and Evren need to be told what democracy is about.
Fifthly, we need a wider discussion in the House on the Kurds, including the chemical warfare and genocide in Iraq, which is being turned on them by the hated dictator Saddam Hussein.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow this application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the arrival yesterday at Heathrow airport of three planes containing Kurdish refugees fleeing from Turkey, and the Government's response."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is

27
to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the matter which he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not challenge your ruling, but I am sure that you will be aware that many of the Kurdish asylum seekers have suffered the most appalling repression at the hands of the Turkish forces and have suffered massacres of their families. They are justifiably seeking asylum. Many of them live in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), as well as in mine.
Is there some way in which, later this week or next week, we can obtain an answer from the Government about the support that they are prepared to give, as humanitarian aid, to people who have suffered the most appalling privations and who are looking for help from the people of this country? Some help has already been offered to them in their present plight by ordinary people in Hackney and Islington.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about those unfortunate people. There are opportunities to raise such matters during the parliamentary week—perhaps at Prime Minister's Question Time tomorrow—and there is always the opportunity, if the hon. Gentleman can take it, of an Adjournment debate. I do not underestimate the importance of the matter, but I have already ruled on the application made under Standing Order No. 20.

The Observer Newspaper
3.57 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted the leading story in The Observer yesterday alleging that seven Members of this House had signed an early-day motion attacking The Observer for publishing fabricated stories on British arms deals at the behest of the newspaper's proprietor.
As custodian Of the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, will you confirm that that leader in The Observer is a falsification and that it grossly misrepresents the proceedings of Parliament? Will you confirm that early-day motion 801, which I tabled, accuses The Observer of falsely claiming that an inquiry into bribes for Tornado had been set up by the National Audit Office? It also accuses The Observer of inventing a sequence of events leading to that so-called inquiry. It also accuses The Observer of deliberately misleading its readers by suggesting that a Privy Councillor had submitted evidence to the National Audit Office backing the newspaper's allegations. That is a blatant untruth. An anonymous letter was received by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and was passed on to the National Audit Office. That anonymous letter made no substantiated allegations and included no evidence.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to what the leading article says about the failure of any signatory to consult the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office, several of the signatories consulted the Chairman of the Committee and the National Audit Office during a deliberative session of the Committee on Wednesday 22 April? On that occasion we were told that an inquiry had already been set up, going back as far as Sir Gordon Downey's time as Comptroller and Auditor General and before The Observer had made the allegations. That inquiry was completely unaffected by the allegations in The Observer.
I stand by early-day motion 801. It is the truth, and The Observer persists in telling lies.
Mr. Speaker: I am not privy to what goes on in the Public Accounts Committee, but I confirm that early-day motion 801 was in order or it would not have been on the Order Paper.

Transport
3.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on the increase in spending on roads by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and on rail by over 75 per cent. over the last five years; notes the substantial and continuing pressure by the public for further measures to be taken up to and after 1992 to relieve road congestion; further notes that additional significant increases in public spending of 25 per cent. on roads and nearly 50 per cent. on rail are planned up to 1992; applauds the encouragement being given to the private sector to develop a role in our roads programme; believes that the privatization of British Rail would improve the service for the customer in the years beyond 1992; notes the improvement in the quality and quantity of bus services following de-regulation, and the privatisation of the National Bus Company; believes that there is a need to take further in the years up to 1992 and beyond the steps already taken by the Secretary of State for Transport in liberalising air fares and routes in the interests of the travelling public; congratulates the Secretary of State for Transport on the steps he personally has taken to promote public discussion of radical as well as conventional solutions to these problems; and urges the Government to continue its efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving these challenges in the years up to 1992 and beyond, the cost of which can now be supported because of the success of this Government's economic policies.
I must observe in passing that millions of our fellow citizens have been subjected to appalling inconvenience and disruption by today's strike action. Although that is not the subject of the debate, it is perhaps appropriate that it should be taking place today. In moving the motion, I am supported by a number of my hon. Friends who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and who will develop a number of themes that my motion seeks to highlight.
I am grateful, too, for the opportunity that winning this place in the ballot provides to draw attention to a matter of great concern to my constituents. The motion seeks to draw attention to the Government's many successes in this important area of activity since 1979, in terms of deregulation, privatisation, investment and the removal of red tape. That record is there for everyone to see but in addition, my motion draws attention to the formidable challenges that we face, on which our constituents expect decisive action and a clear policy.
The solutions remain primarily with the public sector. The excellent state of our public finances, as a result of the success of the Government's economic policy, means that the necessary funds do not elude us. We should be clear that, while the Government have, in part, established a reputation for eliminating wasteful, unnecessary and imprudent public expenditure, the converse is equally the case where good schemes require public funding and provision. The Government have been more responsive and supportive with taxpayers' money than any previous Government.
The challenge does not lie—as it has so often under previous Governments—in how to find the money that we require. It lies in the use of the funds that are available to the maximum advantage in meeting our transport infrastructure requirements. Our geographical position on the edge of the EC makes that all the more important in the run-up to 1992, to which my motion draws attention.
I would also underline what I believe to be the personal contribution that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made in identifying ways of resolving the difficulties and moving transport infrastructure issues up
30
the political agenda. He has given specific encouragement to the private sector to come forward with ideas and proposals. He has promoted an important debate about the future shape of British Rail, and the liberalisation package of late-1987 on air transport and related matters clearly emanated from him. He has done much to focus public attention on the things that need to be done.
Let me deal briefly with the current position of British Rail and the challenges that it faces for the future. It is right to note that under Sir Robert Reid British Rail has made substantial progress in recent years. In the past year, 20,600 million passenger miles have been travelled—the highest figure for 27 years—and £1·7 billion of passenger income has been received by British Rail. At the same time, there has been a 27 per cent. diminution in the support required from the taxpayer to run British Rail. Those are significant figures and accompany the significant investment that has been made in renewing and improving the rail network. No less than £2·5 billion has been spent since 1983 on 30 major investment programmes and many minor ones.
It is precisely because British Rail has made such progress that its return to the private sector can now be discussed as a serious option.
Mr. Peter Snape: Suppose that British Rail had not been so successful in generating internal investment. Would such a lack of success have meant that management was so bad that British Rail would have to be privatised anyway?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman misses the point about privatisation entirely. If a business can stand on its own feet and thrive and flourish in the private sector, it should do so. I am merely pointing out that British Rail fulfils those important criteria. The case for, and objective of, privatisation can only be the extent to which it will assist and enhance British Rail's service to customer and improve its efficiency.
The case for rail has never been stronger. We must respond to rapidly growing passenger demand. British Rail must woo freight off the roads. It is in a unique position to respond to a number of environmental concerns. Above all, it must continue to improve the quality and standard of its service. I believe that British Rail is most likely to achieve those objectives if its long-term future rests in the private sector. I shall not discuss what method of privatisation might be the most appropriate although some of my hon. Friends will wish to refer to that.
Let me mention one local matter of immense concern to my constituents—the future of the midland main line. British Rail, and many hon. Members, have recently received the midland main line strategy study, a document commissioned by a number of the counties affected. It is a positive and helpful document. The approach that British Rail is taking towards the midland main line is a good one. Many improvements are to be made later this year. Last year, I had the opportunity to travel in the cab of a train and to see for myself some of the improvements that need to be made, which are now to be made as a result of representations from a large number of people. The importance of upgrading the line to provide for greater speeds and of straightening out the bends is well known and the more sympathetic timetabling that BR has produced for my constituents' benefit is welcome.

31
It is essential for the region that British Rail accepts unquivocally the long-term case for electrification. I do not accept the argument that it is too far off to comment. Investment opportunities and inward investment in Nottinghamshire require investors to know that the region will have a first-class service linked to the Channel tunnel and the European rail network in the 21st century. That is why it is so important for British Rail's management to state publicly that it is committed to enhancing and improving the midland main line. On electrification, the issue is not "if" but "when". Anything that the Minister has to say on that will be reviewed and acknowledged with great interest when the Nottinghamshire authorities and my constituents have examined his comments.
Mr. Graham Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that many hon. Members sympathise with and support his view about electrification. I hope that we shall sustain the cross-party nature of the campaign, as electrification is vital for our region. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel, however, that a chance was missed in the debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill last week, when a number of hon. Members refused to allow evidence to be taken in Committee, which would have opened up the debate? For example, it would have allowed the very good study to which the hon. Gentleman referred to be considered, along with other items. Does he agree that that was a missed chance?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He and I have made similar comments publicly in Nottinghamshire. I do not want to take up his comments about King's Cross, because that Bill is not strictly relevant to the debate.
The second subject covered by my motion—air travel —is also of great concern to our constituents. Their concerns are specific and refer to costs and delays. The agreement in Europe, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did so much to promote at the beginning of last year, has made a considerable difference. Fares to major European capitals have been cut, more routes have been opened up and new services made available to the public. There has also been steady progress in bilateral agreements.
Having said that, far more needs to be done. It is not right that some airlines should receive state subsidy while others, such as British Airways, do not. There should be access for competitors on routes and destinations. The travelling public, and not cosy cartels reinforced by Government intervention, should determine the nature and quantity of air services. It is the Government's job to arrange safety and regulation; it is not their job to interfere unnecessarily in the market process.
In particular, we should have three specific measures: all EC air routes should be open to free competition; there should be major controls on Government subsidies to airlines; and there must be clear and precise rules for route licensing.
Our regional airports, too, have started to take much of the strain in terms of delays. There has been a huge increase in traffic—nowhere more so than at East Midlands airport which was the fastest growing regional
32
airport in the country. Over the weekend, we heard dire and, I hope, alarmist warnings about holiday air traffic. One commentator said that this year it would be
"finely balanced between muddling through and total melt-down."
I sincerely hope that that will not be the case this year. I believe that regional airports have a major role to play in helping to solve some of the problems.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely deplorable that an increase in the number of transatlantic flights landing at Manchester—an important regional airport—has been blocked because of the failure to negotiate an international agreement on that?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments on some of the themes of Government policy, which have attempted to liberalise the arrangements and make life a great deal easier for the travelling public by offering them much more choice.
Since buses and coaches have been deregulated the public have seen more services, more operators and tremendous innovation. Minibuses now operate in 400 areas, often where traditional buses cannot penetrate, competition is flourishing in more than 100 areas, but operating costs have been reduced by more than 30 per cent. and tendering for services has saved local authorities £40 million. Have we seen any of the dire effects prophesied by Opposition Members? I am delighted by the presence today of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). Everything that he told the people of Nottingham before the previous election has come true. The service that suffered 50 years of decline and decay, accompanied by mounting subsidies from the taxpayer and diminishing satisfaction to the consumer has been transformed. It now thrives and flourishes, it is competitive and it is responsive to the consumer.
Mr. Snape rose—
Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Snape: It was pretty rich, even for the hon. Gentleman, to dismiss the latest report which refers to a drop in bus mileage since deregulation; in fact, the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it at all. He also dismissed the disastrous impact of deregulation on the bus industry in one nonsensical paragraph from a prepared written speech.
Mr. Mitchell: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been since bus deregulation, but I can hardly have dismissed a document that I did not even mention.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Labour victor at the by-election at Pontypridd described himself in a recent sitting of the Standing Committee on the Atomic Energy Bill as a late convert to the idea of bus deregulation. It is delightful that some modern members of the Labour party are late converts to that idea, and it is a pity that there are not more of them.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the point beautifully, but, as always, there are at least two divisions within the Labour party—those who have come into the modern world and those for whom it is still a distant glimmer on the horizon.

33
The problems associated with roads are apparent to all of us. As hon. Members return to their homes on Thursday evening or Friday morning and as they come up to London on Monday morning, they see for themselves the appalling difficulties and congestion on our major arterial roads. It is interesting to note, en passant, that while President Gorbachev is busy disregarding the queueing system as a mechanism of economic control, we run our roads policy on that basis.
I believe that significant action should be undertaken on three fronts. First, investment in our roads should be substantially increased; secondly, we need greater involvement by the private sector; and thirdly we need a radical approach to the problems of London. Those problems affect not only Londoners, but my constituents, who either visit or seek to do business in the capital city. My hon. Friend the Minister will know better than I where the new roads need to be, but it is clear even to the casual observer that we need another north-south link. We need to widen many of our major motorways, particularly the M1, and the technology exists to do that without disrupting the other six lanes. We need to enhance the inter-urban links. I could not fail to mention the A453 which links Nottingham to the M 1. That is a dreadful and extremely dangerous road which needs to be significantly enhanced.
The increasing size of our motorways might only add to the thrombosis suffered in London. Therefore, we must acknowledge the importance of an outer-ring road. Given the territory that it would go through, that development, by definition, means major tunnelling which also relates to environmental considerations that I strongly support. Tunnelling is far more expensive, but, increasingly, it is a necessity. We must acknowledge that environmentally sensitive schemes for road development are essential. We must also do something about planning delays. It now takes nearly 15 years to build a road, which is far too long. We need to find ways in which to reduce that appalling delay.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a local matter of great concern to one corner of my constituency—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on roads?
Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I have more to say on that matter.
The Gedling bypass has been awaited for many years by my constituents. The traffic problems, which are mounting in Gedling, are worse than anywhere else in the county of Nottinghamshire—the county council has acknowledged that. We understand that the county council has other priorities and that it is currently conducting a review to consider what those priorities should be. On behalf of my constituents, I earnestly urge the county council to consider whether the Gedling bypass can now be scheduled in its capital programme. I pay tribute to the Government for their support, as they have considered this scheme to see whether it might be eligible for 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant. It is important to note that the Government regard it as a scheme
"with more than local significance".
I hope that my constituents, who have laboured for so long under this intolerable burden, will see some light at the end of the tunnel in due course.
With regard to the role of the private sector, in building roads, some progress has been made on two of the three
34
pressing problems that it faces. In the past there was no little incentive for the Department of Transport if private sector schemes resulted in the departmental budget being effectively docked by the Treasury, but, recently, significant progress has been made in that regard. The private sector will not use its ingenuity if genuine progress is unlikely to take place, but recent efforts have been made to counter that problem. However, the private sector is still unlikely to come up with an idea and take it to the Department, only to see it go out to tender. I do not pretend that there is an easy solution to that problem because, above all, we must be competitive. Perhaps we could use the concept of intellectual property to see whether there is some way in which to encourage the private sector to use its ingenuity and thus develop new schemes.
The private sector can play a modest role in a number of ways, but I would not wish to overstate that role. My constituents note that the south-east is groaning under the weight of development. They are also aware that new roads are required to relieve the traffic, which is essentially commuter traffic. I do not believe that there is any reason why my constituents should pay for such development and I believe that toll roads could be the answer. Such a solution would bear all the hallmarks of a much more effective regional policy.
Private sector involvement must carry a level of risk or it is merely an exercise in who provides for the debt. The level of risk to some extent dictates the return. The Department must accept, however, that planning and bureaucratic delays, putting in bids and design preparations are part of the cost that the private sector must bear.
There are at least two ways in which the private sector can earn its return—through tolls and by planning gain. I believe that through the latter the private sector could come into its own with interesting ideas and innovative schemes.
4.18 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is especially appropriate that the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) should have introduced a debate on transport today. My colleagues and I have a great interest in this matter—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I was about to say that they are not here to express it; no doubt they are suffering from the transport problems.
My day started extremely early as I spent an hour on the picket line at the Holloway bus garage in my constituency. I went there because I wanted to talk to the bus drivers and conductors and to find out why they were taking industrial action today. Conservative Members should do the same, and talk to those people, although they may simply disregard my advice. Many of the people involved have given many years' service to London Transport, they have worked as drivers or conductors for many years, they are committed to public transport and they appreciate the value of the service. What they cannot cope with is being expected to give a donation to London Regional Transport year after year when they do not receive wage increases as high as the inflation rate, which they have not received for several years. They are also expected to suffer the growing trend of one-person operated London buses, which leads to a slower service, greater strain for the drivers and, I suspect, greater danger for other road users. They cannot tolerate having one

35
route after the other continually put up for sale, either through an internal mechanism in London Regional Transport or to an outside contractor. When outside contractors win the tender to use the route, they sometimes employ drivers on incredibly long hours who have already been declared medically unfit by London Regional Transport.
Conservative Members might praise the virtues of the market economy, but when it leads to danger, as it has on the railways, Tubes and buses around the country, they should think again very carefully. The root of London's transport problems is the Government's obsession with reducing, year on year, the subsidy to London Regional Transport. They say that it should be able to make a workaday profit knowing full well that no public transport undertaking anywhere in Europe does that, or is likely to do so. The Government are also obsessed with promoting the use of private cars and road building as a solution to London's transport problems.
If Conservative Members found London a bit crowded today, it was as nothing compared to how crowded it will be if the Department of Transport gets its way on the road assessment studies and other major road building solutions. The House must face up to the fact that we cannot solve this country's transport problems by endlessly building more and more motorways, which attract more cars, create longer traffic jams at each end of the motorways and ruin the places to which the motorways were originally directed. I advise those who think that that is the solution to consider what has already happened in London and other major cities whose hearts have been torn out to make room for car-borne traffic. The communities' characters are destroyed. If we wish to preserve our urban environment and to protect the nicest parts of our countryside, we will not be best served by building major roads and relying on road transport as the basis of the transport industry.
I often travel on the Euston to Birmingham and Manchester line, on which there is a stretch where the railway runs beside the Ml. As I sit in the train travelling in relative comfort at between 70 and 100 mph, I realise that it is a fast and efficient way to travel. As I look out on to the MI, I can see a sea of traffic going north and a sea of traffic going south. In it, I can see the tense expressions of people driving themselves to early coronaries as they tear along the motorway at 80 mph, flashing their lights and blaring their horns at the drivers in front of them as they desperately try to get to Nottingham, or wherever it may be, five minutes earlier. Part of the reason that so many of those people and freight vehicles are travelling on the motorway is simply that British Rail's pricing structure discriminates against rail transport in favour of road transport.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he can see the tense expressions on the faces of the people in their cars beside the railway lines if he is whizzing along in the train at 90 mph?
Mr. Corbyn: That is a clever intervention. Sometimes I see drivers breaking the speed limit and driving at 90 mph because they are trying to keep up with the train. That drives them to an even earlier coronary than they might otherwise have suffered.
36
I shall return to the substantive point that I was trying to make. Essentially, the Government discriminate against rail and in favour of road transport by continually reducing their subsidy to the railways, which, compared to that in other European countries, is very low. Therefore, the fares are very high. That means that railways are available for those who can afford to travel on them and are increasingly operating as a mass commuter transit system in the south-east or expensive business-class travel elsewhere. They are not seen as a popular form of transport, as they are in France, Italy, Germany and most other European countries.
There is also the increasing pressure on road building, which comes from the Freight Transport Association, which is ably represented in the House by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), many other such organisations and the construction companies, which want the road building contracts. I want a good transport system for this country, and I believe that its achievement will be based on the improvement and development of the railway system rather than on the development of more motorways.
Problems occur in urban areas at the end of motorways. I represent a densely populated urban constituency in north London. It has a low level of car ownership compared to the London average, which is lower than the average for the country. In some parts of the constituency, only 40 per cent. of households have access to cars, which, by national standards, is quite a low rate.
There is a vast volume of through traffic in my constituency which comes through the Holloway road, down Seven Sisters road and through Tottenham from the north. There are continually, enormous traffic jams which pollute the environment and affect the health of many of my constituents.
One might say that the solution to all that would be to build more roads. However, there is zero—I mean zero —support in my constituency for building more urban roads in London to solve the transport problems. For a long time, my constituents have recognised that the solution to London's transport problems lies not in building more roads, but in improving public transport, removing commuter traffic from the roads and persuading people to use the railways and buses.
During 1981–82 when the GLC introduced the Fares Fair structure, and before it was outlawed by the High Court, there was an increase in bus and Tube traffic and a reduction in road traffic and road accidents. With the increase in fares came an increase in commuter traffic, and the old problems returned.
Through their road assessment studies, the Government are quite simply studying a series of road building options throughout London. There is no support of which I know from ordinary Londoners anywhere for this ludicrous idea to go back to the outdated notion of motorway ring roads around London. The east London assessment study, which involves my constituency, will ruin part of Highgate wood and the Archway road area by the building of a grade separated road. According to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, we must not use the word motorway to describe it because it is not one.
Another series of options includes building a toll road along what is now a beautiful stretch of park known as the parkland walk, from Highgate and Finsbury park. It is a two-mile stretch of disused railway which is a delightful piece of open space, particularly for children living on the

37
housing estates nearby, who have no parks and very little open space in which to play. That is apparently fair game to be made into a toll road so that commuter motorists can speed through and destroy that bit of park.
The opposition to that proposal is strong. A few weeks ago we had a march along the length of that stretch, down to Camley street natural park at King's Cross. Even if the Government were to succeed—I hope that they never do, and I shall do everything to stop them—in building the Archway road or the parkland walk motorway route, or in widening Holloway road to take more traffic, the traffic will merely build up at Highbury corner, St. Paul's road and Balls Pond road through Hackney to give the inexorable pressure of more and more traffic, attracted on to the roads because new roads have been built. That will destroy more and more homes, businesses and what remains of London's open spaces and natural environment to make way for yet more vehicles to travel through London.
I hesitate to use the word crossroads lest that be taken as showing support for road building solutions, but we are at a crossroads of planning for London. The only solution to London's tranport problems is a resolute commitment to improving and increasing the number of staff on public transport so that it is a safer and cheaper to use and that means greater subsidy, which will reduce the number of people travelling by car in and out of central London. It also means reducing the size of the major lorries that use London as a delivery point.
London, like other cities, is grinding to a halt. It is an unpleasant, dirty and extremely polluted environment. I want London and other cities to be the precise opposite. The Government's policies are disappointing because they do not face up to the real needs of the mass of the people. Only 18 per cent. of London commuters' journeys are made by private car. Eighty-two per cent. are made by public transport, but one would think, judging from the amount of money that the Government propose to put into road building solutions in London, that it was the other way round.
A small minority of commuters travel in and out of central London by car, compared with the vast majority who are forced to travel like cattle on their way to market on the Tube or overcrowded buses. That is not good enough, and the people of London are heartily sick of it and long for change. Any politician who underestimates the strength of feeling in London against major road building and in favour of public transport should have a careful look at his majority in the last election and consider what it might be in the next.
I notice that many Conservative Members are not rushing to welcome the Government's plans. On the contrary, they are asking for an end to road building solutions in London because, like me, they realise that they are nonsense.
As the hon. Member for Gedling mentioned it, I shall close by discussing the role of the private sector in road and rail building. The private sector seems to be slipped in all the time—as though somehow or other it will help to solve the country's transport problems. But it is not involved in road or rail building or anything else as an act of charity, despite being presented to us sometimes under that guise. It is involved because it is a business, and ultimately the public will pay more, not less, because of the private sector's involvement. I am appalled at the idea of
38
having privately built toll roads and privately built railways; presumably, the latter herald the break-up of the railway system.
We have the basis of a good transport infrastructure in this country in the shape of the rail system. It is underfunded and underinvested in and it needs more money. Instead, the Department of Transport seems to favour major road building proposals, to which there is enormous opposition.
This subject is important and it is regrettable that more hon. Members are not here to discuss it. One can only assume that they are stuck in traffic jams. If so, I hope that they will carefully consider solutions to London's problems which do not lie in providing more roads to bring in more traffic. That is not the way forward. The way forward lies in better, cheaper public transport in which there is proper governmental involvement.
4.34 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a great privilege to be called to speak in the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on at least being here. The Opposition Benches are singularly empty this afternoon. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his choice of subject. Transport policy after 1992 is a highly relevant topic, bearing in mind the years of distinguished service as a transport Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who also happens to double as my hon. Friend's father, gave the Government and Parliament. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is a welcome chip off the old block and I sincerely congratulate him on all that he had to say.
Most of my hon. Friend's remarks concentrated on road and rail investment and on the privatisation of British Rail and the National Bus Company. I also welcome what he had to say about the liberalisation of aviation in Europe. I shall concentrate my remarks on the aviation sector, because my hon. Friend covered the other areas so well.
It is safe to say that any debate on civil aviation should take place at the height of the summer when the problems to which I shall refer are evident. The lovely sunny weather that we are enjoying this month does not mean that summer has arrived early. We shall know when it is summer because there will be a rash of strikes and go-slows at continental airports, air traffic controllers will take action and, once more, we shall see the sad sight of holidaymakers stranded at airports.
It is amazing that the British will put up with almost any inconvenience in pursuit of the sun. Britons of all classes have come to regard a holiday abroad as an inalienable right. As a nation, we are used to queueing, we accept some delays, but how would we react if we were told that only a finite number of holidays was available? The Romans rioted and overthrew their emperors when deprived of bread and circuses, so the party in power when departures to Benidorm are curbed may expect a similar fate.
Last summer, we got through the air traffic chaos with a combination of good luck and good management. We may do so again this summer, but I want to look ahead to 1992 and beyond and to consider how we might cope with a possible doubling of the number of passengers using

39
London's four airports by the year 2005. Do we have the air space and airport capacity to meet this demand without endangering the public, because safety must always be the overriding consideration?
Nationally, there is no particular problem—at least not in theory. There are plenty of underused airports, particularly military ones, and some of our regional airports are crying out for business. But the trend is away from linear routes, as passengers and operators favour the so-called hub and spoke system, in which there are feeder services into major international airports for onward movement of passengers and cargoes overseas. Passengers now prefer frequency to price advantage, so the demand has been for more, rather than larger, aircraft.
This all means that the pressures exerted on London's airports have made the London area quite different from the rest of the country. However, even in the south-east there are enough terminals and runways, and there is sufficient air space. Why, then, is the average delay for aircraft outbound from the United Kingdom 15 minutes, which is exactly twice that in the United States of America? Unfortunately, the answer is that we impose artificial constraints on our capacity to handle these aircraft. For example, we underinvest in air traffic control, so that our air space is underused—it is thought by some—by as much as 40 per cent., and it may even be more. We impose planning restrictions on our airports and bans on night flying. Given the lead times for the construction of new facilities—runways, terminals and air traffic control systems—it could be said that we are already running into a self-imposed problem of undercapacity in the south-east, especially with regard to air space.
There are two possible responses. First, we can treat air transport as a resource of fixed capacity, and control demand through pricing. I reject that option, as, I imagine, would the House. We should favour the alternative: to use investment in technological advances to expand capacity while reducing unit costs.
It was in the light of these problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to advise him on traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area and on airport and air space capacity. The motion gives us the opportunity to debate the Civil Aviation Authority's response. I hope that the advice that we give to the Secretary of State will, to use his own words,
"be fundamental in helping to fashion civil aviation policies taking us through the 90s and beyond the end of the century."
In its consultative document, CAP 548, the Civil Aviation Authority said that: By the year 2005 the number of passengers at London's four airports will have more than doubled to 123 million from 58 million that there were in 1987. Heathrow will be handling 55 million passengers, Gatwick 30 million and Luton 5 million. Stansted could be handling about 60 per cent. of London's longhaul traffic but only if an additional runway and terminal were to be built. Of course for that we have to come back to Parliament to get permission. Secondly, the CAA says that: Regional airports will increasingly handle the growth in air traffic as Heathrow and Gatwick become saturated. Although we would not disagree with that, none of us would want to see Heathrow and Gatwick saturated. There must be scope for expansion. The CAA also suggested that an extra London runway will be needed by
40
about the year 2000 and that planning should begin now if it is to be ready when needed. That is a most controversial suggestion, probably the most controversial of all the CAA's recommendations, and it is a pity that so much emphasis has been placed on it.
The CAA also recommends that charter traffic should not be forced away from Gatwick by giving priority to scheduled services. I am delighted to see that recommendation and I hope that the British Airports Authority will take it on board.
Lastly, the CAA says that business and private aircraft should continue to be restricted to Heathrow and Gatwick and that these restrictions should be extended to their use of airways. The authority also concluded that no additional measures would need to be taken now to affect traffic distribution. It says that it is lack of airport capacity by 1995 that will present passengers with problems.
I agree with the Civil Aviation Authority that the interests of airline passengers will best be served if major decisions on traffic distribution are taken by the airlines rather than through intervention by the CAA or the Government. In effect, that means a continuation of the present system, but there are two rules held in reserve by the Secretary of State which could be abandoned. At Heathrow route frequency capping could go. This is the system whereby instructions can be given to reduce the number of flights that airlines operate on a specific route. It is a way of limiting their slots in order to encourage them to invest in larger aircraft. The second reserve rule relates to Gatwick and it is that preference be given to scheduled services over charter services. That rule should also be abandoned.
Several people have suggested that if demand needs to be managed the preferred option would be for restrictions on small aircraft. But they must have somewhere else to go which still enables them and their passengers to interline with the main hub airports.
We need a pricing structure for the use of air space that will encourage airlines to invest in larger aircraft which, of course, make more effective use of available air space and airport capacity. The present weight-related price structure, which favours small and slow aircraft, should be changed to a pricing structure based on movement-related charges which would encourage the use of larger aircraft. We all want to see that.
In the short term, we must look at ways of speeding up the improvements to our air space capacity, particularly in the London traffic management area, which is known as the LTMA. The CAA has already unveiled its plans for the so-called central control functions, the CCF, under which aircraft will fly one-way tunnels in the sky, each aircraft and tunnel safely separated from all the others. That will reduce the controllers' workload and enable them safely to handle 30 per cent. more traffic. Work is now beginning on CCF, but why do we have to wait until 1995 for it to be fully commissioned when the matter is so urgent?
Similarly, the new all-route centre, the NERC project, is only at the conceptual stage. Eventually it will introduce greater use of automation and other new controlling techniques which are already regarded as essential in the United States of America. I refer to such things as four-dimensional navigation, the traffic alert and collision avoidance system, or TCAS, which is already mandatory in the United States, the use of satellite communications, global positioning systems and data-linked air traffic control.

41
It is to be hoped that these improvements will all be part of the CAA's £600 million investment programme for the next decade. Will it be too little and too late? In view of the high priority that the Government are quite clearly now giving to road and rail transport and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling referred, it would be sad if civil aviation turned out to be the poor relation. Surely these programmes for investment in better air traffic control systems should be speeded up. TCAS alone would increase air space capacity by a further 30 per cent. by enabling the separation and intervals between aircraft to be safely reduced.
It is, of course, quite possible that the United Kingdom could increase its capacity to handle more aircraft movements in the south-east and yet be unable to find slots at European airports for the aircraft to land. Therefore, it is very important that the initiative taken by the Government in setting up flow control management via Eurocontrol should be extended to take in measures designed to increase European capacity overall. Changes in European national systems should then be co-ordinated through Eurocontrol in order to make them completely compatible. Eurocontrol should also be given greater executive power to specify common equipment standards and operating methods and to rationalise the European air traffic control systems.
I was discussing all this only last night with Mr. Jock Lowe, who is general manager, operations control, of British Airways, as we flew back from Washington in Concorde. He was keeping his hand in as a pilot on that occasion. He raised the important matter of manpower and stressed the need for recruitment and training programmes to ensure that we have enough air traffic control officers available to man the improved and expanding systems that we want to see.
There is a greater chance of having these improvements operative sooner if National Air Traffic Services, or NATS, were separated from the Civil Aviation Authority as a plc in its own right. Although the CCF project has been given some priority by the Civil Aviation Authority, it is increasingly evident that the greater handling capacity of CCF will require en-route ATC sectors to be replaced by an entirely new facility which is called LATCC II which is planned to commence operating in 1996 and to provide the foundation for developing and further expanding ATC services into the next century. Why can we not speed up this proposal? We do not even yet know where LATCC II will be situated.
So much for air space. I should now like briefly to comment on airports. Having looked at the figures and assuming that current trends will continue, I see that we will get not only a higher frequency of aircraft movements in future through improved ATC but also larger aircraft. We shall require more terminals rather than more runways in the first instance. Although an additional runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would be welcome now—by everyone except my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has just entered the Chamber—
Mr. Toby Jessel: And many others.
Mr. Colvin: —I am not convinced that the case for either is overwhelming. My hon. Friend and I agree on that. It would be a mistake to start the planning process for
42
either until the evidence in support is overwhelming. I see my hon. Friend nodding, and I am glad that we agree on that.
One measure that we could take immediately is to provide a taxiway at Luton airport, where there is not one, which would improve capacity there. We should also consider moving business aviation and small aircraft away from Heathrow either to Northolt where there is a lot of capacity, or even to a new runway, which could be built on land available for it between the A4 and the M4 north of Heathrow, where it could easily interline with the main hub.
The south-east could run out of terminal capacity by the mid-1990s, which is even before the date at which the CAA identifies the necessity for a new runway. I think that it has got its priorities wrong here. The most obvious solution is s fifth terminal at Heathrow, on the site of the Perry Oaks sludge farm. With the privatisation of the Thames water authority, there will be an opportunity for British Airways to buy that site, which will enable it not only to develop its own unit terminal—it is extraordinary that British Airways, as our most important national airline, does not have one—but to become one of the biggest retailers of fertilisers for roses. That is an application I should like to see go in.
I know that the Government have said that they are not prepared to give a commitment about the fifth terminal at Heathrow, and they they are keeping the matter under review. However, the time has now come for that commitment to be made so that work can start on planning adequate surface access.
Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he has just suggested would be most strongly opposed and hotly resented by hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow in the eight or 10 parliamentary constituencies that already have to suffer, every day, 750 or 800 flights, which disturb people's peace and quiet in their gardens and homes?
Mr. Colvin: I accept my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this matter, but he must not be a Luddite about airport development. Other areas would be only too happy to see their local airports expand. Heathrow is uniquely placed to become an important European hub. Aircraft are getting bigger, which means fewer aircraft movements, and are getting quieter. The noise footprint made by aircraft is much less than it used to be. Furthermore, if my hon. Friend took the trouble to question everyone in his constituency, he would find that many are dependent upon the jobs and prosperity offered by Heathrow, and would be reluctant to see that airport reduced in size, rather than expanding as the rest of us would like.
These improvements at Heathrow would enable it to retain its status as a major international hub, bearing in mind that the Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris is already bigger than Heathrow and Gatwick combined. It will soon have four runways and will be capable of handling 100 million passengers a year, and one will be able to travel straight from there to London in two and a half hours by the high-speed railway link, if we can agree on the route for that. Therefore, it will be a real competitor for transatlantic traffic. To beat the French, the Dutch at Schipol and the Germans at Frankfurt for this European hub business we need to be competitive.

43
That raises the question of the British Airports Authority. Sir Norman Payne, as chairman of the BAA, is a dynamic and effective leader, and he makes the best use of the structure of British Airports Authority plc that Parliament, in its wisdom, gave him. However, I question whether BAA has the right structure to enable true competition to take place. In the paper that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and I wrote on the privatisation of British airports, we suggested three separate plcs for the three London airports. I still think that that would have been a better structure. However, we were assured in Committee that there would be no cross-subsidisation and that each airport would act independently and commercially. I wonder whether that is happening and whether there is not some cross-subsidisation. I know that, from a legal point of view, it is probably too late to "demerge" the BAA into its three separate component parts, but I wonder whether there is a case for referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to see what it has to say.
The BAA is not the only company that may be acting against the public interest. As we consider the liberalisation of air fares and routes in Europe in the run-up to 1992, we should perhaps give European politicians a few lessons on how to retire from owning and running airlines and how they might be made profitable if they were sold to their electors. It is good to know that Britain has been in the forefront of denationalisation, and the move to deregulate European civil aviation. In most European countries, one would have difficulty finding three airlines operating international scheduled services. In Britain, at the last count we had over 20, and that excludes those who are providing purely charter services. Britain can and should take the lead in the liberalised European aviation market, and by that I do not just mean the EC.
Our eventual goal should be an open skies policy where any European airline can fly any route it chooses within the boundaries of the continent of Europe. We want to see airlines free to set the fares that their customers are willing to pay, just like any other supplier, and not to have them regulated by Governments. We want to see an end to restrictions on how many EC airlines can fly a particular route, or how many flights or seats an airline may offer, and an end to the many exemptions that apply to the present EC airlines rules. We must get our European house in order pretty quickly and do it in a way that enables us to unite in negotiating future traffic rights with the United States, which is where the great competition will come from.
The United States has always dealt with Europe on a basis of divide and rule and, as a result, the internal domestic air routes of the United States, wherein over half the world's airlines fly, remains barred and shuttered to those very airlines with whom the United States seeks the right to compete in the skies of Europe. This must end, but I fear that unless the rights of United States airlines to operate within Europe are argued from a common standpoint, the United States may continue to operate a successful policy of divide and rule.
Civil aviation in Europe will grow as fast as the economies of those countries, but there is another factor. People need to travel further in business and they want to travel further on holiday than ever before. In the United
44
States, only one person in 10 has a passport. When the American people suddenly realise that there are other places to see, or they have to travel on business—they will have to come to Europe as it expands following 1992—there will be a great explosion of air travel. I have spoken in an attempt to ensure that Britain is uniquely placed to capitalise upon that explosion, and that London's airports will provide the hub for Europe that we all want to see.
4.57 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall not follow the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has skilfully made in this debate the speech that he would have made about the second motion on the Order Paper. I intend to concentrate on the points in the speech of the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and in the motion. I welcome the opportunity to debate transport matters, although I do not agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling or with what is in the motion.
We need to do much more for the regional airports—I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling about that. If this nation is to make the fullest possible use of regional airports, we must do two things. First, we must solve the problems of those who live in the regions and who find it unacceptable to travel to London if they wish to fly to the continent, America or elsewhere and of those who have to come into the country via London. Secondly, we must alleviate the problem of the fifth terminal at Heathrow to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred in his intervention. The construction of that terminal could be delayed. The air traffic problem in the London area could be considerably alleviated if we were to use regional airports to their maximum potential. Surely there is great growth potential for regional airports.
The arguments that I am advancing apply to regional airports generally but I shall refer specifically to Manchester International airport, which is local-authority owned, controlled and developed. Massive investment is still taking place to ensure that the airport remains a major international gateway for the future. At the beginning of May the new terminal A was opened for domestic traffic. That is only part of the investment programme that is taking place to ensure that the airport continues to serve the needs of the region.
Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a tragedy that when the new terminal at Manchester was opened on 1 May it was not ready for use as a result of an electricians' strike? The conditions for passengers going in and out of the airport were appalling. That is an example of what happens under local authority control.
Mr. Pike: That is an outrageous statement. The important factor is that development is taking place and will continue to take place. The fact remains that Manchester International airport is a major and successful airport.
One of the problems that faces Manchester International airport is the internationally fixed agreements on which airlines can fly where. We want more liberalisation and an end to restrictions. If an airline believes that it can successfully fly in and out of Manchester International airport, or any other airport, it should be able to do so without becoming involved in all the red tape and the various agreements that now apply,

45
which make negotiations so difficult. In Manchester there have been continuing discussions for the past couple of years that involve new companies that want to operate services in and out of the airport. They have been unable so far to make much progress. I hope that further progress will he made. Some new routes have been agreed within the past three years, but others, especially those involving flights to north America, are still blocked.
We have to go a long way yet before passengers are offered the services and fares to which they are entitled when travelling to other parts of Europe. Fare levels for European flights are exceptionally high in Europe generally when compared with fares for transatlantic flights. That is another area in which we want to see progress.
The hon. Member for Gedling referred to bus transport and claimed that local government has saved about £40 million in subsidies following the deregulation of bus services as a result of the Transport Act 1985. I do not dispute that figure but the way in which the saving has been achieved is unacceptable. Those employed in the industry have a worse package of pay and service conditions now than before privatisation and deregulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense.] I hear what hon. Members are saying in interjections. They will have the opportunity of addressing the House if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The majority of those working for what were municipal undertakings and parts of National Bus, including those who work in the great conurbations, have inferior conditions of service compared with those which they enjoyed as an overall package before deregulation. If that is what deregulation and privatisation mean, I do not want them. It is unacceptable that working people should be given a worse package of conditions in 1989. We should remember that deregulation has yet to be introduced in London.
Some of the consequences that we feared as a result of the implementation of the 1985 Act have yet to be experienced, but I have no doubt that there will be continuing reduction in service levels in many areas and that some of the things that we said would happen will happen. Undertakings are changing hands rapidly. For example, Ribble has been taken over by a Scottish undertaking. The Government said that they did not want massive undertakings and that National Bus had to be split up. Now smaller undertakings are being taken over by larger ones. In parts of south Wales, for example, only one company is operating a service. Caerphilly is a specific example. There is no longer an alternative service. That was not the intention of the 1985 Act. There have been many failures and I think that we shall see more problems rather than fewer as the years pass.
I accept that there has been a tremendous improvement in many respects in British Rail over recent years. The present management seems generally far more determined than its predecessors to maintain and improve the rail service. However, there are still many problems within British Rail. The greatest problem is that Government investment and subsidy has been cut in many directions. There must be more investment if the rail service is to meet the needs of the nation. From an energy and environment point of view, the railways offer a far better way of travelling long distances within this country than any other
46
means of transportation. We should be encouraging them. We should also be encouraging more freight to be carried by rail.
The Channel tunnel offers British Rail the greatest opportunity that has come its way this century. It will never get such an opportunity again for many years. It must seize the chance to get freight back on to the railway system and to secure the investment programme that we want. That should be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I see no reason why goods going to the continent or coming from the continent should be taken by lorry to London or Folkestone and the Channel tunnel itself. We want railways services running direct to the continent from the major regions of the United Kingdom, whether the destination is Germany, Italy, France, or wherever. That must happen.
I voted against the Second Reading of the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was introduced on behalf of the British Rail last week, because there was a refusal to accept a direction that the freight needs and passenger requirements of the regions should be examined within the context of the Bill. I am far from convinced that the King's Cross proposals will meet the needs of the regions. That is regrettable. It seems that there will not be an acceptable solution. Because of the existing connections for Channel tunnel traffic that bypasses London it will take almost as long to reach the tunnel from Manchester, for example, as it will from France to the furthest parts of the EEC. That is not acceptable to the north-west. We in the north-west want our export potential to develop for our manufacturing interests.
There is massive investment in the east coast line. The west coast line was electrified some years ago and when compared with the east coast provision it is beginning to look distinctly jaded. It is a much slower line and improvements must be made to bring it up to standard. We need fast links bypassing London and terminating at the Channel tunnel and far better services to the north-west than we currently have, and more must be done to ensure that InterCity services connect with local services better than they do now.
I refer finally to roads. I am by no means opposed to roads investment and recognise that it must be undertaken. I would criticise the Government for not investing enough. Certain sections of our motorway network are still being developed as two-lane highways when three lanes are clearly needed. That is not necessarily a criticism of Ministers because they come and go, whereas civil servants remain in office for longer and they have failed on occasion to take a sufficiently long-term view of future requirements. A number of motorways already suffer from under-capacity. On Fridays traffic on the M1, for example, is almost stationary all the way from its southern end to at least the M6 junction. People who daily travel along the southern section into London find themselves in traffic that crawls all the way, which is totally unsatisfactory.
In Manchester, the M63 bridge over the canal at Barton has recently been widened, but it is almost at full capacity even though the whole scheme has not yet been completed—another short-term folly. The Government agreed to linking the M65 westwards with the M6 and M61, and now that that improvement is back in the programme we hope that it will be completed as soon as possible. I believe

47
strongly that a second east-west crossing will ultimately be needed, with the M65 extending eastwards into Yorkshire, joining the M62.
We should not look to the privately funded sector for a road network. On the continent, there are toll motorways and autoroutes, and as someone who uses French autoroutes from time to time, I can tell the House that they are extremely expensive. The necessity to use toll booths itself causes massive hold-ups. French petrol is also dear, so the cost of motoring in France is extremely high. One could also argue that in Britain, road tax and VAT on cars and duty on petrol also mean that motorists here are heavily taxed and should not be asked to pay for travelling on a super-elite private road network.
The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to advocate that one solution would be the provision of some private roads within the network. I hope that neither the Minister nor the Government will adopt that line. In Britain, most towns are closer to each other than they are in many continental countries. In France, for example, all the autoroutes stop well short of Paris, Lyon and other such places. Were such a system to operate here, one would hardly get out of London before one was having to pay to use an autoroute to Coventry or Birmingham and then leaving it again. That is not a realistic option for Britain. The only people able to use autoroutes in this country would be those whose travel expenses are met for them, and the very wealthy. Nevertheless, the Government must improve the M1 and the rest of the motorway network. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that the time that elapses between agreeing and designing a motorway concept and the completion of its construction is far too long. Something must be done to speed up that process.
The debate has covered a wide range of subjects. I am glad of the opportunity to make points different from those of the hon. Member for Gedling, and I am pleased that he chose transport for the subject of his debate.
5.15 pm
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for allowing the House to debate the subject of transport, and I am particularly grateful to him for his complimentary remarks about me and about the small role that I played as a Back Bencher in the Transport Act 1985 as it passed through the House.
I was not the only Member who was hammered by local authorities opposed to that legislation. I was subjected to a barrage of abuse both locally in Nottingham and in the shire. That abuse was backed by the spending of massive sums of public money by the city and county councils on a campaign to oppose the proposed changes. It is beyond question, that whatever criticisms remain, the prophets of doom were certainly wrong in respect of the city of Nottingham. It would be foolish to suggest that deregulation proved equally beneficial and successful throughout the country. I am sure that that is not so, but the House will forgive me if my remarks are relatively parochial and deal with how deregulation worked in my area and with the transport problems and policies that flowed from it.
One major campaign four years ago suggested that the Government's proposals would be detrimental to the
48
interests of pensioners' and senior citizens' concessionary fares—that they would be abolished or that it would no longer be possible to provide them. I shall be interested to hear from any right hon. or hon. Member who can tell the House of any area of the country where pensioners no longer enjoy the concessionary fare schemes that existed before deregulation. However, the threat was made by the Labour party in my county—where, to the best of my knowledge, the concessionary scheme is as good as ever it was. In many respects, it is even better. It is shameful when political debate sinks to the lowest levels, with the Opposition usually telling pensioners, "If the wicked Tories get their way, you will not get this or that." Their screams of outrage are invariably proved false two or three years later. They get away with it almost every time, which is a matter of great sadness to me.
Another issue that concerned hon. Members in all parts of the House was quality control of public service vehicles. Prior to deregulation, it was said that traffic commissioners would not have the teeth to impose desirable levels of quality control—or, if they did, that they would not have the will to do so. I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but in Nottinghamshire the traffic commissioners are fulfilling the role that was set for them. Only recently, they ordered 35 public service vehicles used by one operator off the road because they failed to meet the desired standards. That operator was clearly incapable of bringing those vehicles up to standard, so in the public interest, rightly, they were taken off the road. Despite that major plank of Labour opposition, the traffic commissioners clearly have teeth and are prepared to use them.
Having made his little speech, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) promptly disappeared. That is a pity, because he let the cat out of the bag by saying that Labour's fears had not materialised. How right he is. It is a shame that he is not here to tell us how many tens of thousands of pounds his local authority spent on telling us what a disaster deregulation would be. I hope that when he comes back, or when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will have the courtesy to apologise to the House for that waste of public money.
Again, I can speak only for our municipal undertaking, but the running of the Nottingham company—and, I am sure, many others—is no longer bedevilled by the meddling of elected councillors who have other fish to fry. It is still owned 100 per cent. by the city council, but it is being run as a proper commercial undertaking with a sensible board. To our delight, the staff who have places on that board co-operate with the managers and directors to ensure that the undertaking is run properly. Now, believe it or not, Nottingham City Transport pays a dividend to the company's owners—the Nottingham ratepayers—instead of draining off hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to subsidise their work, money that could have been better spent on other services in our city.
Only about a fortnight ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, answering questions from me, expressed the hope that at some time in the future the staff of Nottingham City Transport—and, indeed, the staff of many municipal undertakings—would be given the chance of taking a real stake in the company by becoming shareholders. Since then I have talked to management and staff in Nottingham and encountered a genuine desire for such a course.
I intend to talk first to the minority Conservative group in Nottingham, who may be a bit more receptive to such

49
an idea than the controlling majority party, but I hope that even the latter will realise in the end that that is the right way in which to run a major, multi-million pound undertaking which is providing an excellent public service. I fear that it will not be an easy task, as the deputy leader of Nottingham city council has already been reported in the local press as saying that he wants to return to the old arrangement whereby the transport undertaking was merely a committee of the city council, and councillors could engage in their customary meddling, as they did four years ago. To ensure that that councillor never has his way, Conservative members must guarantee that we win the next general election.
Mr. Snape: I hesitate to burst the bubble of euphoria on the Conservative Benches, especially two years before the election. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, however, why it is, if councillors who take an interest in their financial undertakings are meddling, that when Conservative Members take directorships in business they are keeping in touch with the public?
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's question follows from my remarks, but I think that he would be the first to admit that, for a variety of reasons which we all accept, in the main the quality of our councillors is not what we would wish. In effect, they are doing an unpaid part-time job, and not everyone has the time or the energy to become involved in local affairs. Many elected councillors get asked to go on this or that committee, and some used, unfortunately, to end up on the transport committee with no knowledge whatever of public transport and, probably, even less interest. Then they used to meddle. It was a case of, "The people in my ward would like an extra bus. We are in control: let us have it", irrespective of the merits of the case. That is what I meant by meddling, as I think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) knows very well.
The stake in the undertaking allowed to staff and management must be large enough to make worth while their individual and collective commitment to that undertaking. It must be large enough to deter any pirate or asset-stripping bidder who might wish to take control, and large enough for the shares to go to ratepayers as well as staff: it must exceed the magic 51 per cent. I am perfectly happy for the local authority to retain a large minority holding, though perhaps not as much as 49 per cent.—that might be a little dangerous—but perhaps 30 or 40 per cent. To free the company from the Treasury rules, however, the holding of the outside shareholders—staff, management, ratepayers or an even wider group—must be over 51 per cent.
It is not widely appreciated that a major company such as Nottingham City Transport cannot carry out its forward investment planning on the basis of its own commercial criteria; the investment is part of the local authority's borrowing requirement. If the local authority seeks to spend all its allowed borrowing on housing, for instance, unless the bus undertaking can fund its capital investment entirely out of cash flow—which would be unusual in the case of any major business—it will be defeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has already referred to road infrastructure. I often travel up and down the MI, as I am sure he does as well. It is often described as the longest parking lot in Europe. Clearly something
50
must be done, and I hope that the major statement from the Secretary of State that was rumoured in the Sunday press to be expected this week will give the glad tidings that he is about to put extra lanes on to the M1. They cannot come too soon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling pointed out, however, it is no good having the main arteries unless there is access to them for the major cities along the route. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport well knows, the city of Nottingham has been banging on the Department's door since 1971 asking for something to be done about the southern link between Nottingham and the M1—the A453.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those representing urban areas—although, on reflection, I agree that this may apply elsewhere as well—will know that whenever someone wants to build a new road some people are bound to be disadvantaged, and there are screams of objection all round. The A453 is no exception. I shall not go into the details, but almost any option that the Secretary of State finally announces as his preferred option will be objected to, which means that there will have to be a public inquiry. All I am asking is that the Minister should make up his mind now. If it means a public inquiry, let us have it and get it over with. I do not want the southern route into the city of Nottingham to be dug up while I am in the middle of the next general election campaign.
5.29 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: May I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on being successful in the ballot and choosing such a relevant and important subject for debate.
I welcome the motion, not only because it deals with transport policy after 1992 but because it calls on the Government to continue their efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving the challenges to transport in the years leading up to 1992.
The year 1992 will be a vital one for transport policy in particular because I hope and expect that in the parliamentary Session 1991–92, when we are in our fourth term of office, there will be a Bill to privatise British Rail. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that nowhere in these islands will the joy of the liberalisation of the commuters from the tyranny of British Rail be more overwhelmingly welcomed than in my constituency of Chelmsford.
Chelmsford is one of the largest commuting stations in this country, with over 12,000 long-suffering commuters travelling to work in London and arriving at Liverpool street station every morning. Quite frankly, they are fed up to the back teeth with the disruption, the delays arid the poor service that Network SouthEast offers them. They are bored with sitting day after day in trains that have ground to a halt, usually outside Liverpool street station, and admiring the rather indifferent architecture of Bethnal Green railway station. My constituents are fed up with the cancellation of trains, with the running of trains behind time and with being herded like cattle into carriages where, all too often, there are not enough seats for them.
What is even more infuriating is that my constituents are having to pay through the nose for the privilege of this treatment. The record of Network SouthEast is altogether

51
too depressing. Its punctuality target is 90 per cent. of trains to arrive within five minutes of their scheduled times. I would argue that that in itself is an extraordinarily lax target. Those figures seem, however, to be at odds with the experience of many of my constituents, even though they are, as I have said, a remarkably lax benchmark.
Overcrowding is a major problem. The targets for Network SouthEast are that, on average, load factors should not exceed 100 per cent. on slam door trains and 135 per cent. on sliding door trains. In both cases, passengers should not have to stand for more than a maximum of 20 minutes. However, the actuality is radically different from the targets. Average loading of trains in 1986 was 114 per cent. on slam door trains and 139 per cent. on sliding door trains. As a commuter before I was elected to this House, I know from bitter personal experience that many users of the Chelmsford to Liverpool street line have to stand for far in excess of the 20 minutes that is meant to be the maximum.
The national British Rail cleansing targets for carriages are a joke. My constituents constantly have to travel up and down the line on trains that clearly have not seen water or cleaning plants for far longer than a month. Carriages tend to be filthy. Only a small amount of inside cleaning is done to them. In the past, the excuse by Network SouthEast was the need to invest and to improve the antiquated rolling stock, points and signals along the line to Colchester. We have always been promised jam tomorrow, but tomorrow never seems to come for my constituents.
To be fair to Network SouthEast, I must admit that over the last year or two there have been some improvements; some new rolling stock has been bought. In the past, our part of Network SouthEast always used to get the rolling stock that had been used up on other parts of the network. It was then foisted on to this backwater of East Anglia—as though we would not notice that we were getting not second-hand rolling stock but third, fourth or fifth-hand rolling stock that was long past the age when it should have been put out to pasture.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, once that rolling stock has been abandoned as unsuitable for Chelmsford commuters, it is then put to use for commuters who travel to Downham Market and King's Lynn?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am sure that she is correct. I have a great deal of sympathy for her point. I know how dreadful the rolling stock is when it is fobbed off on to my hon. Friend's constituents, before going to the knacker's yard or whatever yard railway rolling stock finally goes to.
However, there seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel earlier this year. We were assured by Network SouthEast that work on the new points and the new signals that are needed on the line would begin over Easter. Liverpool street station was to be closed not for one but for four whole days so that the work could be done. However, I am sad to have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when Liverpool street station reopened after Easter Monday the disruption and the trouble on the line were worse than they had ever been.
52
British Rail had accepted that the work was to be done with equipment supplied by Westinghouse. What no one seems to have taken into account or to have looked into was whether the microprocessors on the trackside modules would be compatible with the overhead electrified lines. Needless to say, they were not. As soon as the line started up again, there were fuses and shorts left, right and centre, because the microprocessors were not fit for the job that they were meant to do.
The misery went on for a number of days before some bright person in British Rail found out that the equipment that British Rail was using at York—made by GEC, which is a major employer in my constituency—was compatible with the overhead lines. Therefore, they brought it down from York and put it into the Liverpool street trackside modules so that they could get the system to work. It is incredible that no one had considered at the tendering stage or at the testing stage whether the microprocessors would work. It is yet another example of Network SouthEast's short-sightedness, which once again did not help to raise the standard of service to my constituents.
Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman blame that chaos on the management, the staff, the public sector or the private sector, or even the Government?
Mr. Burns: I blame the disruption on whoever—I assume that it was Network SouthEast, or the British Railways Board—was responsible for placing the tender for equipment that clearly was not fit to serve the purpose for which it was put into the trackside modules.
My constituents found—to add insult to injury, yet again—it absolutely unbelievable when recently they read that, whereas they believed—and I support them in their belief—that when the disruption to the service had been caused not by vandalism or by inclement weather but by problems that can be laid at the door of British Rail, that British Rail refused steadfastly to give any refund to season ticket holders or purchasers of tickets. It is steadfast in its refusal to do so. As a sop to public relations, it says that if someone has lost some money, due to not being able to go, say, to the theatre because of disruption on the line caused in one way or another by British Rail, it will be prepared sympathetically to consider giving refunds. That is a great deal! Most of my constituents do not travel at 8 am to the theatre; they are travelling to work. When they return to Chelmsford in the evening, they are not usually going to the theatre, or anywhere else where they will have to pay out money. They are going home to enjoy the evening with their families. That does not have a price on it so that British Rail can then fulfil its promise sympathetically to consider making a refund.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the board of British Rail to one side and ask it to think again. My constituents and those of other hon. Members should be given sympathetic consideration when asking for refunds when they cannot get to work or when the disruption in service does not involve a particular financial loss for them. They often have to wait 20 minutes or even one or two hours for a train that long since should have taken them on their journeys. My constituents were especially irritated recently when they heard that British Rail had paid a £17 taxi fare for one of its drivers who could not get

53
home because of the work to rule by other drivers. My constituents think that that driver should have had to find his own way home, even by walking if necessary.
The privatisation of the rail network cannot come a day too soon. It will attract private companies that will have to pay attention to the wishes of their customers and provide a service that actually lives up to their claims. They will have to listen to their customers who want a decent journey to London and back again. That is not asking for a great deal because people pay a great deal of money to travel on the rail network. Year in and year out, fare increases are greater than the rate of inflation—with the hollow explanation that British Rail needs the extra money to reinvest to provide a better service. My constituents have not noticed a better service.
The time for Network SouthEast to pull up its socks has long since passed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will explain to it the facts of commercial life. After 1992, we will not have to worry about pointing out the facts of commercial life to a state-owned enterprise because it will, I hope, be privatised. I shall be returned to the House with an increased majority because I, like many of my hon. Friends, have identified the correct action necessary to obtain a better service for my constituents.
5.42 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for not being present at the start of the debate. Towards the end of my 180-mile journey to the House today, I was delayed for an hour in west London because of traffic jams. That illustrates many of the major problems in the London area. We can quite quickly traverse large parts of the country, but when we reach the south-east corner it is difficult to make progress.
A mere three and a half years from now Britain will be transformed when it becomes part of the single European market. For the first time, it will be integrated into a true community with our continental partners, sharing with them both opportunities and challenges. Britain, like any member state, must prepare itself for changes in both business and the lives of its inhabitants. I regret that the Government's policies have done little to achieve that, especially in the transport sector. Placing advertisements such as "Europe Open for Business" alongside railway lines may raise public awareness of our role in Europe—and as such are to be welcomed—but they beg the question of what the Government have done. They have done virtually nothing about infrastructure investment, which is a serious matter for both businesses and people in Britain.
The south-east is suffering from severe congestion, which costs the country £15 billion a year. That is a great deal of money and it could be used in ways far better than on stationary vehicles needlessly using fuel. We can all imagine the environmental effects of that, and the cost to business of such delays is immense. Unless further investment is made in our motorway system, in another five years most motorways will have stationary vehicles along their entire length. The reason for that statement is clear. Twelve years ago there were 16 million cars on the roads; today there are 28 million, with 2 million vehicles being sold each year. With such a rate of mathematical progression, it is not hard to envisage traffic on most of our
54
main arterial roads becoming stationary, especially on the motorway system. It is art immense challenge to any Government, whatever their colour.
Because of Britain's poor infrastructure, it will be largely cut off from the 280 million consumers on mainland Europe. We do not have an adequate transport system to cope with possible demand. The Government have not properly addressed the provision of an integrated transport system. They have neglected their responsibilities, especially in respect of funding. They are sitting back and watching the chaos develop around them. Thai is a destructive policy. They must surely realise that investment holds the golden key to our nation's economic future.
There are many anomalies, especially in the rail system. The Treasury requires British Rail to guarantee a 7 per cent. return on investment for each of its major projects. I understand that the figure is soon to rise to 9 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will either confirm or deny that when he replies to the debate. No other rail system in mainland Europe is required to produce such a high rate of return on a single investment. Indeed, SNCF of France takes into account the social benefits that might come from any investment. A 7 per cent.—or, even more horrific, the proposed 9 per cent.—return on investment in, for example, the electrification of lines simply does not add up when compared with the costs of motorway jams.
My party advocates investment in the future. We argue for a transport policy that cuts down wasted time and enables increased export earnings by using each means of transport to its best advantage. Where traffic is too scarce to justify railways or too heavy to accommodate passenger cars, the bus is the environmentally sound and cheap vehicle to operate. For the long-distance traveller, buses, local railways and passenger cars should feed into a network of electrified railways that offer the passenger a through service in a comfortable environment. Regional air services should complement such a system. If that were the case throughout the country, our motorways and city centres would not be clogged up with cars and heavy vehicles.
Britain has two busy airports—Heathrow and Gatwick—in the south-east, yet neither is linked to the other by rail connections. The airports are linked by rail to central London, but they are not linked to each other.
The integration of London area airports, the building of new ones and the integration of all existing airports into the national and European rail network is especially important. The French are investing in their rail structure to integrate Charles de Gaulle airport near Paris.
This must not be a matter for party politics. We need a high-speed through rail link that connects the regions with the Channel tunnel. That can be achieved only by building a rail bypass around London. Such a bypass would not be environmentally damaging as it could be linked to further investment in the M25 to widen it. The high speed rail link could be built by the side of the motorway at the same time. A rail link running in a semi-circle from south of Luton to the Maidstone area would join Heathrow and Gatwick airports and solve many of the problems associated with getting rail and road traffic from Scotland, the north, Wales and the west country to Europe.
London is already far too congested, and to bring more people and goods in from the Channel tunnel would make matters far worse. Such a course would present immense

55
costs to industry and to people who want to get from the regions and countries of Britain to the continent. This is one of the greatest challenges before the Government.
My nation of Wales will not even have an electrified rail link from Cardiff to London, let alone a direct through service to the continent, by the time the Channel tunnel is completed and working. The west country will not get such a link either, and nor will the far west of the west midlands. This is a very serious matter for industry, tourism and passenger traffic in those areas. There has to be a revolution in thinking about public and private transport.
Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable interest and pressure in the Republic of Ireland for upgrading the Crewe to Holyhead line so that more rail freight can be brought from the Channel tunnel to the Irish channel ports?
Mr. Livsey: I am aware of that because of the studies made in north Wales to get the north Wales line to Holyhead electrified so that the Irish can use what they call the land bridge to Europe. Unless the line is electrified, traffic from Ireland will be seriously disadvantaged. I should have thought that the European Community could help with improving such links.
When we compare investment in rail transport infrastructure in this country with that in France—they are starting to build a 114 km Paris bypass costing £1·7 billion—we can see how far behind we are getting. After the Channel tunnel is constructed, when we see the far better transport infrastructure on the continent, we will realise how seriously disadvantaged we are. The Government must rethink their strategy for connecting the regions and countries of Britain to mainland Europe.
On behalf of Wales, I plead for an assurance that the second Severn crossing will be completed by 1995, as the Secretary of State has promised. It is a vital link to the south-east of England and to the continent of Europe. Unless this investment takes place and a policy for an integrated transport system is pursued, Britain's future, in economic terms, the quality of life and the environment is dire indeed.
The Government must make it clear that money must never again come in the way of safety. We must regret that we have had a number of tragedies recently. The Government must realise that they have to sponsor investment in transport so that, by the end of the century, we have an industry which is safe, environmentally sound, efficient and which serves all parts of the United Kingdom.
5.55 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to be called, and I should like to echo much of what has already been said about a decent economic transport policy that will encourage economic prosperity. It is important to have an internal and an external transport network.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about Network SouthEast. I spent seven years commuting on Network SouthEast and I travelled more than 25,000 miles in the process. I assure the House that much needs to be done to improve it. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that the way to improve it is to put it into the private sector. When in the public sector, British Airways suffered precisely the same
56
problems that British Rail now suffers. Now that it is in the private sector, British Airways is second to none in the world.
We also need to improve our roads. One area where we can make an improvement now is the M40, part of which is yet to be built. One or two years ago, we talked of a 12-mile stretch of two-lane motorway. I understand that the specification has been increased to three lanes, but I submit that it might be an idea to think about four lanes now rather than to improve the M1 at some time in the future. In other words, it would be better to improve the M40 quickly to reflect the increasing rate of economic growth, because we can do something about it now as we already have planning permission for it.
Because of our geographical location, large seaports such as Liverpool were built up. It was a gateway to Europe and the rest of the world, especially the United States. The important point is the spin-off advantages of such development. Liverpool developed as a port, but many ancillary industries followed. That development had an effect on shipbuilding.
The same is true today of air transport. Once again, we are fortunate because of our geographical position. We are the gateway to Europe and a point of departure to the rest of the world. At Heathrow we have the most important hub in Europe. It is the result of our geographical position, but it is also the result of the deregulation of the past decade. It is the result of the privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority and the fact that we have given aviation entrepreneurs an opportunity to develop air routes when the need arises.
That means that we are in a very good position to deal with a unitary market and the deregulation of air routes throughout Europe after 1992. But that position is now being challenged by airports on the Continent such as Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and particularly Schiphol, which already considers itself to be the third London airport. We cannot stand still, as we have to make certain that after 1992 the primary European hub of operations for air routes in and out of Europe remains in Britain and does not move across the Channel. The importance of that is clear. In the same way as we need to export products to survive, we should be able to export our air transport services. It is just as useful to sell an air ticket for an airline owned and operated in this country as it is to sell a motor car that is produced in this country.
How should we achieve that objective? First, we have to make certain that we have sufficient terminal capacity and ground facilities at our airports to cope with the increasing throughput of passengers. Secondly, we need to make certain that we have sufficient runway capacity at our airports. Thirdly, we need to tackle the problem of air traffic control delays.
The most immediate decision on terminals should already have been taken. There should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. That must happen very quickly indeed. Heathrow has sufficient runway capacity, but it will not be able to deal with the extra number of passengers passing through the airport because of the larger aircraft that are increasingly being used by airlines.
We also need to examine those airports that remain the responsibility of local authorities. The best example of an airport that is not being run as well as it should is Manchester. I know that I struck a chord or drew blood from one or two Opposition Members when I mentioned terminal A at Manchester airport. It is most unfortunate

57
that that terminal was opened on 1 May. I do not know whether the significance of that date had anything to do with who runs Manchester council, but the opening of that terminal was a disgrace and compared most unfavourably with the experience of the first day of the north terminal at Gatwick airport. The electrics did not work, the doors did not work and the catering facilities did not work. I was at the opening of the north terminal at Gatwick and the first day of operation of the new terminal at Manchester. The comparison between the terminal at Gatwick, opened by the British Airports Authority, and the new terminal at Manchester, for which Manchester council was responsible, is a good example of the difference between the private sector and the public sector.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman drew blood, at least metaphorically, when he was stupid enough to suggest in an intervention that strikes only occur in the public sector. It would be equally stupid for me to say that because the privatised BAA plc is anxious to screw its retailers into the ground at Gatwick and Heathrow and those retailers are protesting to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the private sector deliberately exploits its customers who are also its victims. That is as stupid as the hon. Gentleman's earlier remark that strikes happen only in the public sector at Manchester airport.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman should look more closely at what I said. I said that Manchester airport is run by a Labour-controlled local authority that tried to open the new terminal without the correct preparations for that opening. That was at least partly the result of an electricians' strike, but there were other causes. I do not think that that has anything to do with what he said about retailers at Gatwick.
I should like briefly to mention runways and air traffic control movements. If we get the terminals right and increase the throughoutput of passengers in the south-east, we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, he able to wait until the turn of the century before we need another runway in the south-east. But by the year 2000 we shall certainly need another runway at Stansted, Gatwick or Heathrow.
We can ensure that we have adequate runway capacity for the increased traffic after 1992. The hub and spoke argument about air traffic control movements is that if we provide the necessary feeder services in and out of the main hubs, we are liable to attract more traffic. One of the problems is that our three London airports contain a great deal of charter traffic which tends to clog up the works at certain hours of the day. We have to distinguish between scheduled operations, charter traffic, which is, for all intents and purposes, almost scheduled operations, and the package holiday market, which in many cases can be moved to other airports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, some of that traffic could be moved to other airports and possibly to RAF airports such as Manston, Greenham common and Brize Norton. We should also consider business aviation. We have to make certain that we do not throw out business aircraft from the major airports until we have somewhere to put them. If we did that, we would make Heathrow and Gatwick less attractive to business men.
We can increase our airport capacity through regional airport development. I agree with the hon. Member for
58
Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the importance of improving services out of Manchester. However, the hold-ups involved in transatlantic routes are on the other side of the Atlantic with the Federal Aviation Authority which cannot decide what it wants from the reciprocal arrangements that we have with the United States. I have no doubt that we can develop further regional airports. We can develop Manchester as a hub for operations in northern Europe so that people who want to go to north Germany and Scandinavia would fly into Manchester first and then fly on to various destinations. By doing that, and by following my other suggestions, we shall be able to meet the demands of increased air traffic in the next 10 or 20 years.
We must examine air traffic control which is the key to the whole issue. We can have as many runways and terminals as we like, but unless we sort out our antiquated air traffic control system it will be wasted money. The introduction of universal flow control last year did nothing to increase the number of air movements; it did the precise opposite. It is high time that the national air traffic control centre was hived off from the Civil Aviation Authority. We also need to look beyond 1995 and the introduction of the central control function to the production and building of the new air traffic control facility which will replace the one at West Drayton. The sooner we do that the better. We cannot afford once again to fall behind in terms of the air traffic control facilities that our airlines need if we are to maintain our position as the primary hub in Europe.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Why did my hon. Friend say that he would welcome the idea of privatising the air traffic control operation? Does he believe that there is spare capacity or that it is an inefficiently run organisation?
Mr. Mans: The term I used was "hived off". I was suggesting that the regulatory function of the CAA should not be mixed up with the operations of the air traffic control network. They are separate functions and they should be run separately. I should like to see the national air traffic control system in private hands, possibly as a result of an employees' buy-out, but other hon. Members may have other thoughts. It is most important that the two should be separate.
Further development of air transport provides huge opportunities for wealth generation, job expansion and export earnings. We have to plan for the next 20 years, not the next five or 10, in order to get the right answers. We have already made certain that the United Kingdom's major airports provide a gateway to Europe and a departure point from it. We need to ensure that our airports' capacity and air traffic control network provide the support for our highly efficient airline operators to take on the rest of the world.
6.11 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his choice of subject for debate and on the skill with which he introduced it. I must commend him for drawing the attention of the House to the importance of transport, if on this day of all days we need it drawn to our attention, and for putting the importance of transport and communications in the context of our needs in 1992 and beyond.

59
I represent an East Anglian constituency, and East Anglia is particularly well placed with regard to the European Economic Community. It is so well placed that on a foggy day fortunate viewers in north Norfolk may find themselves viewing Dutch television without adjusting their set. Although that is a telecommunications point, it illustrates that East Anglia faces continental Europe.
Several flourishing ports, including the exceptionally successful Felixstowe, mean that exports can leave easily and cheaply for continental Europe—a point increasingly appreciated by trade and industry not just in East Anglia. I do not imply that development and optimism are limited to Felixstowe. The ports of King's Lynn and Great Yarmouth have ambitious expansion plans for 1992 and beyond.
If East Anglia is to flourish as the obvious gateway to Europe, continuing investment and improvement in both road and rail networks is essential. There have been considerable improvements in both the A11 and A47, which are two of the region's most important roads and certainly those most vital to Norfolk over the past years. Yet Norfolk has only 20 miles of dual carriageway out of a total of 5,000 miles. That means that of Norfolk's total road network 99·8 per cent. is not dual. I wonder whether that is a record. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me. Moreover, although the position in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire is slightly better, the overall percentage of dualled roads in the three counties is still only 2 per cent.
Those figures would be curious anyway and they are certainly unacceptable to people in East Anglia who see with envy the large sums of cash expended elsewhere. I must emphasise that this Government have invested an enormous amount of public money in an excellent infrastructure of good road networks. East Anglians are also aware that undualled roads and those which switch from dual to single carriageway systems cause twice as many accidents as those which are fully dualled. Therefore, they feel themselves under-privileged compared with other areas and with regard to accident rates.
The figures are curious because, although East Anglia has the smallest population of all the English regions, it has the fastest population growth, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know. It also has twice the national average traffic growth. That is again highly significant. The three East Anglian counties have a much higher car ownership than elsewhere. It is 10 per cent. higher in Cambridgeshire, 12 per cent. higher in Norfolk and 10 per cent. higher in Suffolk. Therefore, our roads are needed and are used.
A particularly interesting contrast can be drawn with Scotland, which shows what we in East Anglia believe are defective ways of making judgments on where expenditure and investment should be made on roads. Scotland has a population of 5 million, whereas East Anglia's population is 2 million. In 1986–87, East Anglia had 19 per cent. of the expenditure spent on Scottish roads. If the figure had been calculated on comparative geographical size or population size, East Anglia would have had 25 per cent. of what was spent on Scotland, or 40 per cent. of the total. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say how these sums are calculated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said, this weekend there have been
60
rumours of a possible White Paper which would include future investment schemes. The A11 and A47 are included in those rumours and I hope that they will prove to be true. I commend the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling about the role that the private sector may take in the investment, given the enthusiasm of industry and commerce in East Anglia for good access to the ports which I described at the beginning of my speech. In particular, planning gain may be interesting to those industries and firms which want a good speedy communication network to the East Anglian coast.
I am sure that the hearts of all hon. Members present, with the exception of one or two, bled for the plight of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and his constituents. In East Anglia we should all be delighted with the investment in the electrification of the Liverpool street—Norwich line, on which Chelmsford lies, and the promise of electrification between London and King's Lynn. A good dose of consumerism, possibly injected by private sector interests into the management of British Rail, could only be in the interests of its users. I am thinking particularly of cleanliness. Unfortunate commuters between Liverpool street and King's Lynn never see the view. Not only is the rolling stock excessively old, but it is consistently coated with a think layer of grime. It is their impression that they are travelling at night. Moreover, although breakdowns are frequent, and have been frequent while engineering works have been taking place between Liverpool street and Norwich, there is seldom a word of explanation or an apology to the commuters who, by their payments, are making the whole operation possible.
I conclude by mentioning a problem on the railway line between Thetford and Norwich. Recently, the number of trains stopping on that line has been cut from 14 to five. The number of trains travelling along the line has not been cut; what has been cut is the number of opportunities for passengers to get on them. It is extraordinary that a service which is supposed to exist in the interests of the people who use it could provide any rationale for running trains through stations while the interested parties stand on the platform unable to mount the train. I am sure that there will be an explanation and, I hope, a complete reversal of that policy. I am following up the matter with British Rail in conjunction with all the enraged commuters who used to travel on the line between Norwich and Thetford and are now unable to do so. They are reduced to waving to the train as it passes briskly by.
The private sector, in helping our communication network both on road and rail, can do two things. It can provide a useful injection of cash but, almost more importantly, it can introduce a positive attitude towards its consumers and customers which, all too sadly, British Rail anyway seems to lack.
6.20 pm
Mr. John Bowis: The timing of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) is impeccable. Not only is there a rising interest in transport, but today, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said, the old saying about it being better to travel than to arrive has never been truer. Some hon. Members have said that the Opposition Benches are a little empty, but I know where Opposition Members are. They are in my constituency trying to find their way through to

61
the centre of London, and there are no Opposition Whips present because they are all on Lavender hill and the south circular searching for Labour Members who are desperately trying to get through to the House.
It can never be gainsaid that I represent not so much a constituency as a traffic jam. When my constituents get up in the morning—this has been especially true today—they get their cars out, they drive a few yards and then they sit in a traffic jam. So they go back home and decide to catch a train. They wait at the platform, but the trains do not come. If they do arrive, they are not so much things that people get into as things that people burst out of when the doors open. Then my constituents must wait for the next one or the one after that.
My constituents then go down the road and try to get on a bus. The bus stop is probably about half a mile away, and then the bus probably stops at one of the bridges in my constituency because a barge has run into it and the bridge is closed. So they go down the road still further and decide to get on the Underground, but they suddenly realise that we have none. Mine is the bit of London that the planners forgot when it came to transport. It has no Underground stations.
It is not surprising that, as they sit in their gardens, having given up the idea of travelling anywhere, listening to the buzz of traffic and smelling the fumes from the stalled cars, my constituents think that it would be a good idea to have some integrated planning for transport. I agree with the many hon. Members who have referred to the need for integrated planning for London, instead of doing a bit here and a bit there. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take the message on board. It is not within his gift to appoint a Minister for London transport, but I ask him to make the suggestion to people who may have that gift. It would be a blessing for mankind if we had someone to co-ordinate all aspects of transport within the M25 area.
Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members have always wanted a strategic planning authority for London and were disappointed when the GLC was abolished and was not replaced by a strategic planning authority? Does he agree that there is an overwhelming case for an integrated planning authority that deals with transport and planning for London? If not, the chaos that we have seen today will be as nothing compared with what will happen in the future.
Mr. Bowis: We certainly do not want the GLC back, because it did not invest in transport in London. But I agree about integrated planning in London, and that is why I am asking for a Minister or someone else to take charge of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling will forgive me if my remarks are somewhat London-based, but I come from my constituents with a shopping list. The first item on the list relates to heliports. My constituency has the only heliport in London, which seems a little de trop. Sometimes we are pleased to provide this service for mankind as people bustle down our roads to reach Battersea heliport. But the heliport has become rather full, and people are trying to increase the number of flights by 50 per cent. When my hon. Friend the Minister talks to the people who make the decisions, he should say, "If you want to have flights into London, they must go up and down the river and must not cut corners and cross over houses; nor must they go during the night". It may be a
62
good idea to have radar screens so that we can tell where the flights are going. The Minister should also talk to the planners of the City airport and suggest that it is about time that heliports were built in other parts of London to share the load. Many of the people who use Battersea heliport come from the City airport, and the last thing that they need or want is to come all the way down to south-west London.
My shopping list also includes roads. Ministers should listen when there is agreement across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned opposition to roads. There is similar opposition from all parties in all the boroughs in my area to the proposals put forward to the Department of Transport by the consultants. That is not the proper solution. It would simply bring more traffic into our area. If the road exists, it will attract more traffic. Nor do we want WEIR—the western environmental improvement route—unless we can find an expensive way of diverting it underground and bringing it out on the A3 beyond the Robin Hood roundabout. If that could be done, I might begin to consider it, but to take traffic down from Shepherds Bush to the river, where it would have nowhere to go but on to my already overcrowded roads, would be nonsense.
Several minor things could be done to improve the roads of London, including odd bits of straightening and widening and better co-ordination of traffic lights. My hon. Friend should consider carefully a scheme that some of us have been promoting called red routing, which would stop parking on through routes. There should be no parking, waiting or delivery between 7 am and 7 pm on through routes into London. It is unnecessary, and every time that one thoughtless person parks or double parks, 10 people are delayed and may suffer the coronaries to which other hon. Members have referred. People should park on side roads, and deliveries should be made outside rush hours. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce heavy penalties on people who offend in that way.
Many hon. Members have mentioned rail, which would provide some solutions to the transport problems of Greater London. But we should examine the unused and underused lines of London. We should examine existing lines to see whether we can make trains and platforms longer to improve comfort, reliability, speed and safety. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the west London line and to the possibility of reopening a station in Battersea. Battersea High street station was closed during the war and was never reopened. That station could be linked with Chelsea harbour, where I believe a station is proposed. When it is electrified, it could provide a new through route into Clapham junction and thence to Victoria.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Bowis: I am trying to fit in a number of points before ceding to the chuffers from the Front Benches who will produce some light at the end of the tunnel.
Many of my constituents, and people throughout the south-east, come into Waterloo station and then go down what is called "the drain"—the Waterloo and City line. The Waterloo and City line has trains, if one can call them that. They may be the third-hand and fourth-hand trains going back 50 years to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) referred. It is

63
high time that that rolling stock was replaced. I know that schemes are shortly to be introduced to do that and I hope that the Minister will give them a swift go-ahead.
The other main request on railways is that the Underground should be brought to Clapham junction. If we do that, we shall have the option of taking further south the Hackney to Chelsea line proposed in the central London rail study, which would relieve the southern end of the Northern line.
There has been talk of British Rail having requested a Bill for only one item in the central London rail study—the east-west line. I am told that that has been requested for November. I hope that that does not mean that the other options will be ruled out. It is important that the Hackney to Chelsea line should be kept to the fore as a real option.
There are many other options that we could discuss in this splendid debate—not least the use of the river by river buses and river taxis. Other hon. Members have referred to bus deregulation and Hoppas. I shall not, as the one thing that I ask of transport is that it should be punctual and I am told that the Front Bench spokesmen are waiting to speak at this very moment. As I pull into my station, I invite them to take off.
6.31 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I do not think that I have been referred to as a chuffer before.
Mr. Bowis: What about a puffer?
Mr. Snape: Or even a puffer; certainly not. Even so, I am prepared to forgive the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) because his speech was excellent. I hope that I shall not prejudice his prospects if I say that the Department of Transport needs men like him. The sooner that common sense the like of which we have just heard emanates from the Government Front Bench, the better.
The hon. Gentleman ought to take the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who initiated the debate, on one side. I had some misgivings when I saw today's Order Paper. It was full of statistics, one or two of which were misleading, and of sentiments which, when they were not cloying, were completely wrong. I am afraid that my forebodings were soon to pitch up against the rock of reality when the hon. Member for Gedling started his speech by praising the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall not attack the Secretary of State in his absence—he has had enough of that from other quarters—but I must say that I should not have considered the present incumbent of the post to be the most successful that we have had over the years.
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not the worst; that accolade belongs to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has long been remembered as the worst Secretary of State for Transport the country has had. He is rapidly on his way to proving to be the worst Secretary of State for the Environment that the country has ever had. It is a pretty unenviable double. It is not accurate to describe the term of office of the present Secretary of State for Transport as especially successful, or to say that he has enhanced his prospects.
Besides the inevitable dash of sycophancy that one has come to expect from the younger Conservative Members, I was struck by the fact that the remarks of the hon.
64
Member for Gedling contradicted those of his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Gedling talked about British Rail making substantial progress, whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was livid—I think that that is a fair description—about the lack of progress that has been made in one part of British Rail, Network SouthEast. A contradiction runs through all our debates about British Rail. On the one hand, BR is making very good progress in meeting financial targets, while, on the other, we have the decline in services that makes the hon. Member for Chelmsford gnash his teeth. That is because financial targets and quality of service do not go together very well. The fact that British Rail meets its financial targets in obedience to the Treasury, or to the Department of Transport, which is subordinate to the Treasury, inevitably gives rise to the fall in standards that has made the hon. Member for Chelmsford, among others, wax so indignant.
The hon. Member for Gedling also made the plea that is habitual from hon. Members in his part of the world for the electrification of the midland main line. I do not wish to patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out to him that if the midland main line electrification scheme does not meet the criteria laid down by the Government, the line will not be electrified. It is as simple as that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those financial criteria are wrong, he should say so.
I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny the point put to him by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). I hope that he will confirm that the investment criteria that have ruled out the electrification of the midland main line—for at least the next seven to 10 years, I would estimate—will not be worsened by the increase from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman noted that my comments did not run counter to British Rail's investment criteria. I sought to make it clear that, as there is a long-term case for electrification, we must be told about it locally so that those who make investment decisions about investing in Nottinghamshire are aware that British Rail intends to ensure that the midland line remains at the forefront of railway technology.
Mr. Snape: I was not for one moment suggesting what the hon. Gentleman has just implied. I have to tell him, as gently as possible, that he falls into the same trap as some of his hon. Friends. They are all in favour of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, except when it applies in their constituencies or to a railway line in which they have an interest. The fact that the midland main line will not meet the Government's criteria in the short term means that it will not be electrified in the short term. If the hon. Member for Gedling wishes that to change, he should get on to the Government to change it.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not dissent from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) about the desirability of electrification, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is dangerous to talk about the electrification as the be-all and end-all of good, clean, fast rail travel? Provided that the trains are properly timetabled and kept clean, there can be no more comfortable service than the 125 service.
Mr. Snape: The problem about that is that once the high-speed rail link is built and the Channel tunnel is

65
opened, the high-speed trains will run no further than St. Pancras—or whatever the new King's Cross interchange is to be called. Electrification is essential, both for freight and for passenger traffic, if the east midlands is to realise the potential that will be created by the Channel tunnel and the high-speed link. I think that that is the reason behind the view of the hon. Member for Gedling that electrification is desirable.
Mr. Livsey: The same criteria applied to the south Wales line, which will not meet British Rail's investment criteria. If cost benefit analysis was applied in that case, the railway line would be electrified very much sooner.
Mr. Snape: No doubt everyone will rush in with pleas from various parts of the country and the Minister, who never likes to say no to anybody—at least not from the Dispatch Box—will have the unenviable task of turning people down. Before that happens, there is a case for re-examining the work of the Leitch committee, which recommended in 1977 that there should be a fairer way of considering proposals for railway electrification, and railway projects in general, in relation to the road network. It suggested that the criteria should be examined to ensure that the same criteria are applied to both modes of transport. Those recommendations have never been properly implemented. If we are to solve the vexed question of which main lines should be electrified, perhaps the Leitch report should be dug out of the vaults and studied by the Minister and others.
The debate has ranged far and wide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) remarked, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made a comprehensive speech about air travel—the speech that he would have made on his motion had this debate not looked like occupying all the available time. He will forgive me if I cannot say much about his speech because of the lack of time. I think that the House will be united in joining the hon. Gentleman in pleading with the Government to be a little more sympathetic to the aims and objectives of regional airports. Air traffic control procedures and the modernisation of the necessary equipment may well form the subject of a debate in the future. If our aviation industry and our airports are to meet the challenges of the 1990s, and if a greater degree of liberalisation is achieved regarding air fares, it is vital that air traffic control is improved.
The hon. Member for Gedling, among others, praised the impact of deregulation on our bus services. I always believe that hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, can afford to be sanguine about the impact of deregulation on the bus network. Politicians are not normally found thronging the bus stops in the rain. Those who praise deregulation because of its impact on the bus services in the rural areas have obviously not talked to many of their rural constituents, nor have they waited for too long for those rural buses—their numbers have been sadly decimated since deregulation. The report that I drew to the attention of the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out the reduction in bus-passenger mileage since deregulation. I recognise that there have been some valuable spin-offs from the legislation, but we must remember that bus managers displayed a conservatism with a small "c"—probably with a large "C" too—in previous years that led them to pooh-pooh the idea of minibuses, particularly on some of the busier routes.
66
During my short and particularly undistinguished term of office on what was then known as the south-east Lancashire and north-east Cheshire passenger transport authority—fortunately defunct, if only to get rid of that particular mouthful—any suggestion from councillors, those much maligned creatures so disliked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, that minibuses should be operated in the south Manchester suburbs was greeted with scorn by the so-called professionals in the industry. They assured us that minibuses were generally unreliable and would be unable to cope with the battering that they would receive in everyday service. They were wrong then and, since deregulation, they have been proved wrong again. Perhaps we should acknowledge that since deregulation more minibuses have been introduced in some parts of the country, which have benefited the passengers.
Roads have not been mentioned that much, although I heard one Conservative Member advocate the addition of yet another lane to the M1. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) were right to say, "So far, so good, but what happens to the extra cars and lorries generated by the extra lane when they reach the end of the motorway?" Certainly in recent years the collective realisation has been that urban motorways are not the answer to our transport problems.
May I tentatively suggest to the Minister that one way in which to ease the congestion on our motorways would be a campaign, undertaken by the Department, to persuade a substantial number of British motorists that the left-hand lane on our motorways is not there purely for decorative purposes. The number of motorists who persist in hogging the centre lane of the M1 and our other motorways is legion. Rather than an extra lane being added to the M1, a somewhat cheaper solution would be to persuade motorists that the left lane is there not simply for milk floats or farm tractors but for all road users. After all, we drive on the left, at least until 1992—and who knows what might happen after that.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for this opportunity to debate public transport. However, listening to the hon. Gentleman and most of his hon. Friends, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Battersea, one would never have thought that we were debating public transport at a time when there is very little of it in London. I am not, however, suggesting that that is the fault of the hon. Member for Gedling.
The "Business Focus" section of The Sunday Times yesterday was full of the City's plans for British Rail. The headline ran:
"City wants a ticket to ride."
A number of graphs illustrated what the Conservative party would consider were the eminently praiseworthy achievements of British Rail. They showed that the labour force had gone down, productivity had gone up, costs had gone down and passenger income had risen. Two graphs were missing, however: one to show quality of service standards, which have taken a swift nose dive—the hon. Member for Battersea suggested that—and one to show the wages of the employees within the railway industry compared with those employed in other industries.
I do not want my concluding remarks to be too partisan as I always like to maintain all-party amity as far as possible. If the Government do not tackle the problem of customer and staff satisfaction, the problems faced by

67
London today will be repeated in the rest of the country in the months to come. I get no personal pleasure from saying that, but unless those problems are dealt with, privatisation in the short term will be immaterial.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate these matters again in more detail, particularly aviation, which represents an important sector of our transport network. No one has mentioned shipping, which is another important aspect of our transport policy. In recent years the British merchant fleet has declined dramatically, and some of that decline is due to Budget changes, many inadvertent, which have militated against the British merchant fleet. I know that the Minister will not make a speech about shipping today, but it is a vital part of Britain's transport system and we should debate it.
I am aware of the time and I know that I must conclude. I am running according to Network SouthEast times, so I shall be a couple of minutes late. Nevertheless, this debate has been about important matters and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling for giving us the opportunity to debate them.
6.47 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I begin where the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) ended, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on the quality of his speech. He is particularly well informed and I think that may be for good family reasons. During his speech he was heckled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and that is the traditional tribute paid to a good speech.
The debate was also an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) to discuss bus deregulation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role that he played during the passage of the Bill, which became the Transport Act 1985. My hon. Friend was as perceptive in those matters as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Not many hon. Members are prophets proved right in their own time and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been. I have no current powers to oblige the privatisation of bus companies and to bring about employee ownership. However, it is certainly not something that I would rule out for the future and I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling comprehensively dealt with roads. He is aware of the enormous increase in road usage that we have experienced. From 1982 to 1987 the number of cars grew by 16 per cent. and the number of goods vehicles by 11 per cent. Although the Government's investment record has been impressive—an increase in capital investment in trunk roads of about 60 per cent. since 1979, and 880 miles of new and improved motorway and other trunk roads completed—we recognise that congestion is a serious and expensive problem for British motorists and British business. We are in no doubt about that. Reducing congestion has always been one element of our road policy and, given the recent increases in congestion, we have recently undertaken a thorough review of the trunk road programme. We have concentrated particularly on schemes that will reduce congestion on the roads between cities and that can be
68
completed quickly. We shall announce the result of that review shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) will not, therefore, have to wait long to see what is proposed in the White Paper and whether it helps her constituency.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that one of the most important steps is to make better use of existing infrastructure. I am grateful to him and several of my other hon. Friends for their interesting proposal to have a red route scheme through London to speed traffic on its way.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Nottingham, South were worried about the A453. We are considering making improvements to that road, which links the M1 to Nottingham, and I have noted their views carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was also concerned about the Gedling bypass. He is aware that the scheme is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire county council as the highway authority. We encourage counties to improve their local road networks through transport supplementary grant, for which the Gedling bypass is a suitable candidate. Therefore, it is for the county to give it a higher priority so that it can be considered by the Government.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and other hon. Members who urged us to get on with private finance that I am determined to increase the private sector's role in the provision of road infrastructure. The private sector has much to offer in terms of innovation, enterprise and management efficiency, and can make a real contribution to the provision of roads in this country. I am convinced that privately financed roads will soon begin to complement our public sector road network.
Such a policy has already started with developers being able to invest in improved access to their developments by contributing to local trunk road schemes. Since 1986, 50 agreements have been concluded, and 50 more are at an advanced stage of preparation. We want to go further. We are encouraged by the example of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, which is being built in the private sector. We are encouraged to think that the second Severn bridge may be suitable for private sector development.
There could be much more. There are many ideas in the private sector about how private finance could be applied. My colleagues and I have held valuable discussions with the private sector and some firms have already come forward with interesting ideas. We have tried to answer their questions about the way in which we shall proceed. Only a few days ago, we were able to remove one obstacle, which many believed stood in the way of private finance, by announcing the retirement of the Ryrie rules. That means that there will not be a scheme-by-scheme reduction in the public road programme in respect of privately financed projects. That is a useful step forward which means that we are progressively cutting away the obstacles that stand in the way of, or have been perceived to stand in the way of, the private sector.
Some issues still need to be clarified, and the consultative document that we shall shortly publish will, I hope, help to do that. It will cover subjects such as shadow tolls, which the Government regard as a financial device, which is no more than disguised borrowing, and is unacceptable. It will also cover the issues raised by my

69
hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, such as exclusive rights to ideas for road schemes—what he called intellectual property.
Roads are unlike other commodities. Anyone can suggest a route, which may have been worked out in great detail or may be merely a line drawn on a map, but they cannot have exclusive rights to it. Where the Government support a scheme—for example, through hybrid legislation or procedures that require compulsory purchase—we must ensure that we can justify our choice of project by having a proper competition. Competition is an essential feature of a true market, and a factor which the Government have taken great steps to introduce into many areas. It brings with it higher quality and efficiency.
The key issue that we want to address in the Green Paper is the suitability of existing procedures to authorise privately financed roads. We are clear that our current procedures are unsuited to privately financed roads, whether financed by development gain or tolling. We are considering how they can be improved. All highways legislation is designed for conventional, untolled roads that are financed by the public sector. Tolling has to be authorised by statute on a case-by-case basis. Shortly, we intend to bring forward proposals for better procedures.
In a Betjemanesque attack on the horrors of Bethnal Green, which he believes should share the same fate as Slough, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised the subject of the difficulties of travelling on railways. He said that he was fed up with being told that we would receive jam tomorrow. However, I have some large lumps of "jam tomorrow" for him. In real terms, investment last year was the greatest since 1966. This year, investment is planned to be 25 per cent. higher again, the largest in real terms since 1962. Therefore, it is the largest in the history of the British Railways Board, and yet more is planned for the early 1990s. The pace of approvals of investment is also increasing. Since January, I have approved investment in a total of 423 new passenger coaches to add to the 2,372 that have been approved since 1983. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to 50-year-old trains, giving a new meaning to the phrase, "The Age of the Train". He can be assured that the Government will look carefully and sympathetically at any investment case that is brought forward by British Rail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling takes a realistic attitude to the possible electrification of the midland main line. During the 1990s, British Rail will begin to assess the results of the east coast main line electrification, and consider whether there should be further major route electrification. Those results should be available for analysis before the rolling stock on the midland main line comes to the end of its useful life and decisions will have to be taken on major replacement. That will provide the ideal opportunity for British Rail to examine whether electrification would offer the best option for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) raised many interesting questions about aviation, and in doing so he was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I fully agree with the main thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside that we must open up the market to provide better services at lower fares.
When he talked about airport policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside drew attention to the document CAP 548. He will understand that, as that is
70
a consultation document issued by the Civil Aviation Authority to help it to fulfil its commission from the Secretary of State to provide advice to him on United Kingdom airport capacity and traffic distribution, it would be wrong for me to become involved in arguments that might pre-empt the decisions that must be taken. However, I understand the urgency and importance of the questions that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre raised about air traffic control. He will know of the important practical measures that have already been taken. Indeed, he referred to a number of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the major development for the early 1990s—the phased introduction of the central control function at the London air traffic control centre, which will be completed by 1995. That new traffic management system will provide adequate capacity to handle Stansted at full, single runway capacity of 40 movements per hour, Luton at 16 movements per hour, and Heathrow and Gatwick at their runway capacities. Further system enhancements will also be introduced at the London ATC centre, the Manchester sub-centre and the Scottish and oceanic control centres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside was worried about why such matters needed to take so long. He knows that they are complex systems and the senior management of the CAA has called in consultants for the specific purpose of conducting an independent review of the central control function. The consultants advised that the time scale was aggressive, but realistic. That was an independent point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre suggested that the national air traffic services should be hived off from the CAA. That suggestion was put forward by the Select Committee and, along with all its other suggestions, we shall consider it.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was concerned about the development of Manchester airport, which I well understand. He will be aware of the need to make fair agreements between different countries and of the tremendous advances that Manchester airport has made, with the £300 million of capital investment that has been made in local authority airports since the Government came to office. We are keen to allow additional opportunities for new United States airlines to operate into Manchester, but it is important to secure balancing opportunities for United Kingdom airlines into the United States.
The debate has offered us a good opportunity to discuss transport policy. The motion that we have been discussing was superbly drafted, and it calls attention to a decade of achievement in transport by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling not only for that but for the opportunity he has given the House—especially to my hon. Friends—to offer a series of interesting ideas on transport topics.
The future will require a continuation of Government investment in road, rail and air traffic control, and our economic success makes that possible. But our future will also require further liberalisation and privatisation, and I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for the vigorous support that they have given those policies today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the increase in spending on roads by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and on rail by over 75 per cent. over the last five

71
years; notes the substantial and continuing pressure by the public for further measures to be taken up to and after 1992 to relieve road congestion; further notes that additional significant increases in public spending of 25 per cent. on roads and nearly 50 per cent. on rail are planned up to 1992; applauds the encouragement being given to the private sector to develop a role in our roads programme; believes that the privatization of British Rail would improve the service for the customer in the years beyond 1992; notes the improvement in the quality and quantity of bus services following de-regulation, and the privatisation of the National Bus Company; believes that there is a need to take further in the years up to 1992 and beyond the steps already taken by the Secretary of State for Transport in liberalising air fares and routes in the interests of the travelling public; congratulates the Secretary of State for Transport on the steps he personally has taken to promote public discussion of radical as well as conventional solutions to these problems; and urges the Government to continue its efforts to identify ways of mitigating and resolving these challenges in the years up to 1992 and beyond, the cost of which can now be supported because of the success of this Government's economic policies.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the blocking motion or the instructions.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is not able to move the Second Reading of this Bill, but I am delighted to do so on his behalf and on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London. I speak wearing three hats on this matter—as one who went to the City of London school, as a freeman, and as a member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. I greatly admire what the corporation does for the inhabitants of London. It spends vast sums on London and it deserves to be praised. I am delighted that it is now looking after Hampstead heath and I am sure that it will do so extremely efficiently.
Nothing in the Bill could be called controversial in a party-political sense, although it may well prove controversial across party lines. I shall try first to explain the three parts into which it falls and then, with permission, respond at the end to points on which clarification may be needed. If I have to be away from my place from time to time I hope that my hon. Friends will understand, should any points require further elucidation.
I am sure that hon. Members have read the Bill in great detail and seen that it falls into three sections. Clauses 4 to 8 deal with the need to build the Hackney to the M11 link road. As clause 7 makes clear, the Department of Transport will pay the costs of this part of the Bill, and it must explain the reasoning behind these clauses, which the City has had to include in the Bill. I can take no responsibility for the views of the Department of Transport. The corporation has been merely a vehicle for this part of the Bill.
The background is as follows. This link was first announced in 1979 and was the subject of two public inquiries, in 1983 and 1987, as a result of which the route was fixed. Some Epping forest land has been taken around the Green Man roundabout, and some land near by at George Green will also be affected. The City argued at the 1983 inquiry—by City, I mean the conservators of the forest—that the road at these spots should be in tunnel to protect the environment of the forest, and that happy solution was agreed.
I propose to use measurements with which we are familiar. Six and a quarter acres of forest land will be permanently acquired by the Department of Transport; approximately another half an acre will be subject to the right of access, with seven acres being used during the construction time. These latter 7·5 or 8 acres will be restored and returned to forest use after the completion of the road, and the tunnel tops will be grassed over. The cost of all that will fall on the Department of Transport.
The Department has agreed to add 20 acres of land to the forest adjacent to Wanstead park, representing a net gain of permanent forest land of more than 13 acres. This land will be properly prepared for forest use by the

73
Department. In passing, I may add that those who talk about the speed of road building should note that more than a decade has passed since this idea was first suggested, and not a piece of tarmacadam is yet in place.
During and after construction special access will be provided at the new roundabout for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Horse riders play an important part in the background to this Bill. Access will be provided even during the construction period, and when it is over there will be proper, permanent access for these three groups.
The second part of the Bill, clauses 9 and 10, is about horse riding in the forest and has aroused much local interest. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) have been much interested and involved, as was my late friend and colleague Sir John Biggs-Davison. This part has given rise to much detailed discussion. Those who have visited the forest in recent years as I have know that it is used a great deal by horse riders and riding schools. The impact of horse riding was last reviewed about 20 years ago, and the City has been concerned about the implications for the ecology of the forest and for other users, as the area is used much more by riders now.
The City has had a duty since 1878 to maintain the forest for the enjoyment of the public, and to protect it. Most of the forest is due to be designated as a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Because of that, and because of the increased riding use, a working party was set up and there was a review in 1988. The group that undertook the review visited all parts of the forest and consulted widely.
Three major problems were identified. First, a minority of inconsiderate riders were causing damage to others and to the forest and generally showed a lack of concern for the local ecology and environment. Secondly, the intensification of riding has caused adverse ground conditions. That has caused ecological damage and is affecting the pleasure derived by others who use the forest. The increase in riding is churning up parts of the forest and making it less pleasant for walkers. Thirdly, there is the increased cost of trying to keep the rides in acceptable condition.
During the past 15 or 20 years the City has spent about £1 million on the provision and maintenance of rides. The intensification of riding means that substantially more has to be spent on maintenance, additional provision and long-term control. Unless the Bill is enacted the riders will make no contribution to the upkeep, preservation and restoration of the forest. I shall return to those matters.
About two months ago I received a letter from an organisation called the "Friends of Epping Forest". That organisation makes clear that there is a large volume of support for the City in its desire to regulate horse riding in the forest and to make reasonable charges to riders. The honorary secretary, Mrs. Bitten, says in the letter that the organisation sent out petition forms on 8 February to be returned by 28 February. At the date of her letter there were already 3,500 signatures.
Mr. Steve Norris: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that there are now more than 5,000 signatures on that petition, which I have taken charge of this very evening.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that update. It shows that those who use the forest accept that the City has been doing its best to look after the interests of all the people who use it.
The review that I mentioned has resulted in two main proposals. The first is that powers must be made available to control the irresponsible and thoughtless activities of a minority. I stress "minority" because the overwhelming bulk of riders are not irresponsible and accept the logic of what the City is suggesting. Secondly, the riders will have to make some contribution, and the money will be specifically ploughed back into facilities, thus enabling the rides to be maintained, added to and improved. The City has made clear that the contributions will not be spent on the general upkeep of the forest, but will be specifically applied to the riding areas.
The concept of contribution and registration is not new. It is already operated elsewhere and was recommended as long ago as 1969 by the Eastern sports council to the then Minister responsible for sport, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Power to restrict rides is in the 1971 Act. At that time the proposal to register and to charge was deferred until about 20 miles of surfaced rides were nearing completion. Now those 20 miles are virtually ready for use.
I stress that all the amenity and conservation groups that were consulted support the proposals. There were two objections and both were from riding associations. The objections were mainly that riders should make no contribution. That is a narrow way of looking at things because riders are specialised users of the forest and other specialised users, such as people who fish or people who play football or golf, make a contribution. Therefore, the objection by the riders is impossible to sustain on any logical basis.
The third part of the Bill is much more domestic. It deals with pedestrian safety, emergency access, litter and school staff appointments. I should like to deal with those matters and it might be useful for the House to know some of the background and the reasoning for this part of the Bill. Clause 17 will prohibit pedestrians from using the Blackfriars underpass and the part of Upper Thames street which is in the tunnel. I do not know how many Members have tried to walk through that underpass, but I hope that any who have had heavy life insurance because the underpass is narrow and dangerous and no pedestrian should try to go through it. Quite rightly, the City is saying that because there is no suitable footway provision in the tunnels and the presence of pedestrians is likely to give rise to hazards affecting them and other road users. However, there are perfectly easy and acceptable alternative ways for pedestrians.
Clause 12 allows the corporation temporarily to close walkways for repair or maintenance and to set opening times generally. At the moment the right to use walkways, which is conferred by existing legislation, is confined, strangely enough, to pedestrians. Understandably, the City thinks that it would be helpful if provision for access by emergency services vehicles could be permitted. Present legislation does not permit that but clause 12 of the Bill would make it possible.
Earlier I spoke about the Green Man roundabout and George Green. That shows how green we all are. In a green world we must prevent the dropping of litter and clause 13 tries to tidy up that aspect of legislation. I am sure that hon. Members will know that the practice of giving away

75
magazines and other publicity material is widespread throughout London and certainly in the City. The material is frequently given out near Underground stations, especially during the morning rush hour. As most of us have observed from time to time, the unused material is left unattended in piles on the pavements or elsewhere for passers by to pick up. If it is windy or if someone kicks the pile of material the pieces of paper are scattered. If they are scattered so as to conceal a step tread the result could be highly dangerous. The City wants permission to remove this material when it is deposited in public places adjacent to the highway, such as at street entrances to railway stations and the Underground. Again, that would be accepted as practical and sensible.
Clause 15 makes amendments to the traffic legislation that governs roads in the new Billingsgate market, and clause 16 does the same to permit byelaw-making powers to deal with house boats.
As an old citizen, perhaps I should comment in great detail on clause 17, which makes provision for the staff appointments at the City of London school. In the time that I was there, most of us would have welcomed the chance of having a say in the appointment or removal of certain masters, but times have changed and the City wants to modernise the process. What is suggested in the Bill is practical and, I think, acceptable to any modern thinking organisation.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy those who wish to be satisfied, and will not fuel the fires of those who do not. Legislation affecting the City of London is always a great gamble. Some will use it as a vehicle for the most vehement attack on the City. Others will use it as an opportunity to say, "Bring back the GLC." Others, like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will use it as a genuine reason for making a particular point that is worrying them in their constituency and to advance arguments to which I am sure the House will wish to listen. I believe that the Bill is a good thing, as Sellar and Yeatman would say.
7.21 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for his comments about me. However, the Bill steals Leyton's forest land, and gives it no proper replacement. That is the nub of the matter and that is why I object to the Bill and so have tabled a blocking motion. My constituency is the only one to be adversely affected by the Bill. Nobody would expect a Member of Parliament worth his or her salt to put up with that state of affairs, and I will not. I shall speak in detail about the iniquity of the Bill and of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is forcing the Bill through and robbing Leyton of its land.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Whose constituents will gain most by the new road? From where in his constituency does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the replacement land should come?
Mr. Cohen: I shall deal with that second aspect in great detail. I have already put that information to the agents, Sherwood and Company, who said when they looked at it, "Oh, crikey! What you want is peanuts, Mr. Cohen, but
76
we'll just have to check with the Department of Transport." They phoned the Department of Transport, which said, "No deal." It ill behoves the Minister to talk about replacements and negotiated land for the forest land taken from my constituency when his Department blocked the suggestion for replacement land.
As to the first point about who benefits from the road, I shall also come to that. My constituents are beginning to wonder, because of the Government's immense meanness in refusing to put nearly all of the road into cut and cover. They are prepared to put tunnels all over the place for their Tory friends but not in an urban area like Leyton which needs them. I will read to the Minister what I said in the public inquiry, which welcomed the road but argued that it needed environmental benefits, which the Department of Transport has sabotaged. My constituents, and even the local council now, are wondering whether the road is worthwhile without those benefits, because it will carve across Leyton and Leytonstone and be a disbenefit overall, especially as it will be there for 100 years or more.
I have tabled a motion suggesting that the Bill should be read a Second time not today but in six months. My real wish is that it will never be given a Second Reading, or at least not until Leyton gets reasonable compensation and a reasonable deal. I asked for what the agents described as peanuts, but the Minister was too mean to provide it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is ill, and I am sure that the House will wish him a speedy recovery. He sends his apologies for not being here to speak about his instruction, which reads:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they satisfy themselves that none of the provisions contained in the Bill are in conflict with the draft Strategic Guidance for London issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment."
My hon. Friend also wants to draw attention to the important environmental aspects over which the Department of Transport is riding roughshod, particularly in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West takes it as an important principle that urban areas should have a good environment. In his constituency and my neighbouring constituency he wants to see put into effect the proper environmental guidelines and improvements that the Government claim to be supporting. However, the Minister for Roads and Traffic is ignoring them by forcing through this proposal, which is a scandal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) also sends his apologies. Although he knew that his blocking motion would not be selected, he would have been here, but he has had to go to an important meeting at the Foreign Office to talk about Kurdish refugees, many of whom are coming into his constituency. Therefore, he sends his apologies. His instruction reads:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill so to amend Clause 11 as to provide for equivalent space elsewhere in Upper Thames Street to compensate for the additional area which will be closed to the movement of pedestrians in order to facilitate access to buildings on the route."
Again, he is looking for compensation for his constituency and other parts of London. Perhaps I should not say this as he is not here, but his constituency is not as badly affected as mine. Leyton is being robbed of forest land by the Minister. He is stealing forest land in a built-up urban area without replacing it. I note the point made by my hon.

77
Friend, and I hope that the Committee will pick up his point. However, I shall concentrate on what is happening in Leyton.
A cartoon appeared in the weekend press—in The Guardian—that amused me. Perhaps I should not say that because Steve Bell amuses me quite often with some of his sharp cartoons. In this instance he summed up the Government's environment policy in his usual caustic manner. He showed the Secretary of State for the Environment lazing in a deckchair. He was talking about fast golf—yes—and Socialism—no. Then he outlined his environment policy. In effect, he said, "We stop the working class from voting, breathing, eating and farting. Next, we nuke ourselves up to the eyeballs. Next, we invest in more global weaponry." That is about right for the Government's environment policy. After that, the Secretary of State, through Steve Bell, said, "Then we retire to Gloucestershire to build major extensions to the family seat."
That is the Government's environment policy in a nutshell when it comes to working people. That is why the Minister for Public Transport does not give a fart for forest land in Leyton. That is the truth of the matter. Steve Bell's cartoon summed up the Government's attitude extremely well. A good environment is all right for Ministers, but they do not care about the environment for urban areas such as Leyton.
In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate described the City of London as the vehicle for the Department of Transport, and that is exactly what it is. This is an appalling abuse of the private Bill procedure. A private Bill is supposed to be exactly that—private. That means that the Bill is something that is wanted, for example, by the City of London, or by the people of Leyton. I can tell the Minister that the people of Leyton did not want him to steal their forest land without proper replacement. We are witnessing an abuse of the private Bill procedure. In reality, we are dealing with a Government measure.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, "This is a vehicle for the Department of Transport." Those were his words. That being so, the Department should have come to the House with its own Bill. It should have introduced a Bill entitled, "The Stealing of Land from Leyton Without Proper Replacement Bill". The City of London should not have been used as a pawn.
I tried to negotiate with the City of London. The compensation that I wanted was described by the agents, Sherwood, as peanuts. That being so, I thought that the City of London would settle quickly. I received a telephone call and I was told that the Department had in turn been telephoned. What interest does the Department have in the matter when this measure, apparently, is a private Bill? I was told, "We have phoned the Department and it says, `No deal."' This is an abuse of the private Bill procedure.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I wish to make it clear that I said that this part of the Bill was a vehicle because the City has legislative responsibility for the forest. Therefore, if there is to be any change, the matter has to come through Parliament in this way. I have been assured— I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this from me—that at no stage did Sherwood use the word "peanuts". I am told that
78
that is the word of the hon. Gentleman, and it is one that I understand. Sherwood's representatives are emphatic that they did not use the word.
Mr. Cohen: That is a lie. I am not calling the hon. Gentleman a liar, but what he has said is an untruth. I was present at the meeting on the Terrace. The agent is sitting outside the Chamber. Obviously, someone who is not a Member of this place cannot sit in the Chamber. When she considered the compensation for which I was asking, she said, "This is peanuts."
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate for intervening in my speech. It was interesting because I was not sure whether the City of London was neglecting the people of Leyton, whether it had been called upon by the Department of Transport to do the dirty work, or whether it was a bit of both. I was leaning to the view that it was doing the dirty work for the Department in stealing forest land from the people of Leyton without paying compensation. However, it may be that it is acting off its own bat. If that is so, the people of Leyton face an appalling sell-out.
As I have said, the Bill is a Government measure. At least, that can be said of the provisions within it to which I am referring. I accept that other parts of the Bill are the City of London's responsibilities. When it comes to forest land, the motivation lies with the Department of Transport. It is prepared to take forest land from Leyton without providing proper compensation.
We are being presented with a fait accompli. The conservators were put over a barrel by the Department of Transport. If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate is saying that the City of London gladly colluded in the process of robbing Leyton of forest land without providing proper compensation, that will be remembered by the people of Leyton. If that is so, it is a scathing indictment of the City of London.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has told us that City of London Bills are always a gamble. Who is he kidding? They are never a gamble. There are always 100 or more Conservative Members who are prepared to crawl out of the woodwork for the City of London. Ministers crawl out of the woodwork when these Bills come before the House. A City of London Bill has never been defeated in this place since way back in the 1800s. That is because Conservative Members are in the pocket of the City. Perhaps they will get a few good dinners at the Guildhall. They do not mind robbing the people of Leyton of their forest land without providing proper compensation. They do not give a toss about that. There is no gamble. We know that 100 Conservative Members, or more, will roll up to vote at the end of the debate. That will not be the end of the matter, however, because the argument will continue.
The statement that was issued on behalf of the promoters in support of the Bill's Second Reading was shameful. If statements and advertisements had to be honest and truthful, the statement would fail those criteria. It is a statement of deception and lies. It seems that the lies will be compounded if the agent says now that she did not say that the compensation that I was seeking was peanuts.
I shall run through parts of the statement. Initially, it states:
"The Bill is promoted by the Corporation of London for the principal purpose of authorising the Corporation as Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of

79
State for Transport the land, and the rights in land, that he requires for the construction of a part of the Hackney to M11 link road authorised under the Highways Act 1980."
That is how the statement starts. It is a sell-out by the City of London and the conservators in that respect. The Bill does not provide compensation for the people of Leyton for the forest land that the Minister is stealing. It is no excuse to quote the Secretary of State's powers to acquire land for the Hackney Wick to M11 link in not providing replacement land to the benefit of people living in Leyton and in Leytonstone. The conservators have sold out in respect of their role to conserve an urban area such as Leyton, which is scandalous.
The statement continues:
"The Bill would authorise the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State out of the open wasteland of the forest the freehold interest in some 27,500 square metres—approximately 6·8 acres—rights to construct and maintain foundations in some 2,500 square metres—approximately 0·62 acres—and rights of temporary occupation for the construction of the roadworks in some 28,500 square metres—approximately 7 acres. The authorisation is subject to the acquisitions of the Secretary of State using the usual statutory powers for compulsory purchase."
The Secretary of State will not use those same powers to acquire compensation land. He will not use them to rehouse the homeless in my constituency, who are suffering as a result of the proposal.
The figures of the amount of land that is being taken are interesting. It can be seen that a large area of land will be used, but the statement does not reveal anything like the full picture as to the amount of land that is being nicked—being stolen—for the roundabout. We do not mind the roundabout, provided that land is given in its place as a recompense for the land that is stolen.
Item 4 on page 2 of the statement says:
"By the Epping Forest Act 1878 the Corporation as conservators of Epping Forest were charged with the duty of preserving as far as possible the natural aspect of the forest."
The same should apply to Leyton. The statement continues:
"By Section 7 of that Act they are required to keep the forest unenclosed and unbuilt on as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public and to resist all encroachments on the forest."
The same should apply to Leyton, but the conservators have failed to meet their responsibilities to the people of Leyton as to the forest's natural aspect. The conservators say, "They are only Leyton people. They do not matter that much." That is the conservators' attitude, which echoes that of the Minister for Roads and Traffic. The conservators' attitude is, "The Leyton people can lose their forest land and not receive any compensation."
The conservators have failed over a long period to upgrade the forest for the people of Leyton and Leytonstone, particularly in the Whipps Cross and Hellow Pond area. One of the conditions that I put to Sherwoods, which were described as being "peanuts" until the Department put the boot in, was about upgrading the forest land. It was the conservators' job to do that in any case. They should have upgraded the land over the past 100 years, but they neglected that responsibility, which makes me very angry. That is another reason why the statement is nonsense and represents an abrogation by the conservators of their responsibilities.
80
Item 6 concerns itself with the chosen route doing the least damage to the forest's natural aspect. The conservators have not done that part of their job particularly well either. Nevertheless, item 6 states:
"It was for this reason that the Conservators argued for the new road to be put in covered cuttings, as previously described, at the Green Man roundabout and George Green."
At the last inquiry into the roundabout, Wanstead was given more covered cuttings, but Leyton got none because of the Government's meanness and vindictiveness, saying, "The people of Leyton don't matter. They don't need forest land." The conservators have not tried very hard to secure covered land in Leyton. Their efforts were tokenism in the extreme and reveal another aspect of their neglect.
Item 7 states:
"The area of land to be given in exchange for the forest land required for construction purposes is to be equally advantageous to the public and to the commoners as the forest land for which it is substituted."
That is a straight lie. The forest will be substituted by scrubby old sewage land in Wanstead, two and a half miles away. That land cannot in any way be described as "equally advantageous", not in Leyton it ain't. It will not do. Item 7 has the cheek to continue:
"This addition will provide a substantial amenity for local people."
What a nerve. It will not do so, and that is yet another straight lie, unless one expects the people of Leyton to walk two and a half miles from the Green Man roundabout and risk getting run over on the way. That is one of the biggest stretches of road there is. That will not represent any kind of amenity for the people of Leyton.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to depart from the truth. The "scrubby old sewage land" to which he refers will be brought up to the standard of the forest by the Department of Transport. There is no question of there being "scrubby old sewage land."
Mr. Cohen: What a big deal for the people of Leyton. They will be provided with substitute land two and a half miles away along a busy motorway, which will not really be of any benefit to them. I still say that it will be scrubby old sewage land. Our experience of Redbridge council showed that it was only too keen to build on land that had toxic waste under it, causing medical problems for the people who subsequently lived there. Who is to say that such a thing will not occur again in respect of the replacement land?
The people of Leyton want open spaces, forest land and parks, yet the Minister is stealing Leyton's forest land. The Government, using the vehicle provided by the Bill, are manipulating the City of London and the conservators, and are stealing Leyton's forest land without replacing it properly. That is the reality of the situation. If the Department of Transport's meanness is anything to go by, that scrubby old sewage land will not be brought up to a proper standard. The Department will spend the barest minimum, unless the other policy comes into play so that, because it is a Tory area, it can have what resources it likes while Labour areas have their forest land stolen from them. If that is the case, we have a Minister whose green and environmental policies are perverse. That is something that the people of Leyton will understand very well.
The Government are supposed to be environmentally minded. The Prime Minister has made a statement saying in effect that, having broken all the pollution laws under

81
the sun for years on end, we are green now. I heard the Minister proclaim that as well on "Any Questions". He must think that people in this country are green. He clearly thinks that the people of Leyton are if he imagines that they will allow their forest land to be stolen without their Member of Parliament protesting.
The Government are not green at all. They have broken more Common Market standards and laws on pollution than any other Government in the EEC. They are the party of law and order—except when it comes to polluting and despoiling our environment. They allow the pollution of beaches up and down the country, and do not provide clean water. They are not green but motorway grey: they are stealing Leyton's forest land for motorway tarmac.
Leyton is a heavily built-up urban area, with houses set close together and not much green space. There is not nearly enough park and forest land. The people who must live in the area have received no help from the Government, and what little green space is available around the perimeters is coming under assault from all directions. The local authority, seeking to maintain its parks, has been savaged by cuts in rate support and capital grants. Kiddies are being hurt in the playground when they fall on to tarmac. The Government have not provided the money for the council to provide safe equipment in the first place, or safe landing facilities in the second.
The parks are becoming devastated and bare. There is more and more wasteland. I am not complaining about the council's employees, who do a wonderful job, but they are increasingly stretched. Jobs, too, have been savaged by the cuts in rate support grant. Those people are working hard just to preserve an amenity—the breath of fresh air that is vital in a heavily built-up area where juggernauts go past pumping out their diesel poison.
As the central London road assessment studies make clear, the Bill is part of a package that puts Walthamstow and Leyton marshes seriously at risk. On 7 April the Yellow Advertiser, a local paper, featured a photograph of Lea Valley park with its symbol. It is a bit like a nuclear symbol, but at least it means fresh air in this instance. Lea Valley park has not done a great deal for my authority, considering the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that has gone into it; there is an ice rink, but that is about it. In the past it has backed schemes to dig up the marshes for the gravel and to try to make a profit out of it.
The paper headlines its article
"Natural beauty road planners' target … concrete future for marsh area?"
There is a beautiful picture of the marshes. You are welcome to come and walk over those marshes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you would enjoy it enormously; it is a wonderful piece of land.
Mr. Hugo Summerson rose—
Mr. Cohen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to confirm that it is a wonderful amenity, and that he does not want roads to be built over it.
Mr. Summerson: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned a part of my constituency, I feel that I must rise to agree entirely with what he has said. The Walthamstow marshes are indeed an ancient part of our heritage, going back 1,000 or 2,000 years.
I saw the article that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to put it on record that if any such scheme ever attempted to cover
82
Leyton and Walthamstow marshes with concrete in the way that he has described I would fight it to the limit, and I am sure that my constituents would simply not permit it.
Mr. Cohen: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that they would not permit it. He is a relative newcomer to Waltham forest, but when I was on the local council the Conservatives on the council voted for a proposal to dig out the gravel from Walthamstow and Leyton marshes. It was only the Labour group that stopped it from going ahead, despite tremendous pressure from the Conservatives, the Government and the big business interests who wanted the gravel. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's change of heart, but I think that he will have to go back and discuss the matter with his colleagues, and try to persuade them to change their views.
Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman must not impute to me views that I simply have not expressed. I do not know what any particular council of any particular political complexion did in the years before I was elected; I am speaking for myself. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I would fight such a proposal.
Mr. Cohen: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement. I am merely giving him a bit of the history. I must point out to him that his hon. Friend the Minister is a very mean-minded man when it comes to the Leyton people's forest. He is stealing it from them and refusing to give it back, and he can exert a fantastic amount of pressure.
The hon. Gentleman has not been all that good at fulfilling his pledges in the past. I remember that about a year ago he signed a motion opposing charges for eye tests, and pledged that he would fight them. When it came to the vote, however, he went through the Lobby with the Government, and the eye charges were imposed. While I welcome his promise to oppose the concreting of this land, I wonder how much faith can be put in it. I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking honestly now, but when the pressure is on and the Government Whips are out, will he do the same as before?
Let me quote from the article in the Yellow Advertiser, which deals with the assault on the green land of Leyton and Leytonstone and the surrounding areas, and the theft of the fresh air and forest land that belong to the local people. It says:
"Concrete future for marsh area. Outline proposals to ease London's traffic congestion include the idea of ploughing a major road straight through Walthamstow marsh."
It has also been referred to as Leyton marsh. Leyton marsh runs into Walthamstow marsh. Both marshes are affected by the plans. The article continues:
"In the past, the boggy nature of the land has been its best defence against any sort of development but now private consultants, hired by the Department of Transport, have pinpointed the Lea Valley as one of a number of options for new roads. Other neighbouring open spaces that would disappear under concrete if the Lea Valley option is ever taken up are the Warwick reservoir and the Essex filter beds."
Those are prime and important areas of land in the area. The article continues:
"Marie Fallon, conservation officer with Waltham Forest council, said: 'It is at very early stages and the consultants have not clarified what they mean by the proposals."'
That is why this is a most dangerous time. We must stamp on the proposal, or attempt to do so. The Minister will not get away with this without finding that he has an enormous fight on his hands. The article then says:

83
"However, the London ecology committee, which includes councillors from 23 boroughs, has been so alarmed that it has asked for a meeting with roads Minister Peter Bottomley."
I bet they got scant joy from him. He is only too keen to take forest land from the people of Leyton and, presumably, from people elsewhere for his pet grey motorway projects. He is a very grey Minister. He would do that without providing any proper replacement for what he takes away. The article goes on to say:
"Waltham Forest committee member, Councillor Eric Sizer, said, 'When roads are being considered it is often thought easier to push them through open spaces where opposition is thought to be muted. We will stress to the Minister that we regret that so many of the options affect significant sites of value for nature conservation and other much loved open spaces.`"
I echo Councillor Sizer's comments.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may be able to remind us whether that councillor was with us when the hon. Gentleman and I went down the high street on the trunk road to within about 150 yards of the Green Man roundabout. I seem to remember being with the hon. Gentleman for about an hour and a half—or was it two hours? We started near Leytonstone station; we walked up towards the Green Man. I introduced the hon. Gentleman to a number of his constituents, many of whom recognised him and paid tribute to his work. We spent a long time together, but I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman, or one of his constituents, or one of his councillors mentioning one word of this. However, I do remember the hon. Gentleman discussing with me whether the Hackney to M11 link would provide the kind of environment improvement, the casualty reduction and the improvement in life required in his constituency.
It seems to me that since that time, when the hon. Gentleman was walking politely around with me, he has discovered an awful lot of things that he might have tried to share with me before this evening. He is talking in general rather than in specific terms. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity when we were within 150 m of the roundabout—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was at school when metres were taught rather than yards—to speak to me about one of the main matters that worries him.
Mr. Cohen: What a distortion that was, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At that meeting the chief executive, as well as myself and others, including the local press, said, "Could we speak about the M11 link and the tunnelling options?" The Minister replied, "I'm not here to speak about that."
Mr. Bottomley indicated dissent.
Mr. Cohen: He put a block on it in the first two minutes. The press were all around him; so were the councillors, the chief executive and the officers. They said, "Could we have a word with you about the tunnel?" The Minister said, "I'm not here to speak about that. I'm here to plant a tree and to walk up and down the road." That is what he said. His statement was a distortion of what happened.
I intend to deal with two specific details. I am just setting the general picture of the Government taking our forest land—our green, open space land—and not giving proper compensation for it. The Minister intervened at that point because he did not want to discuss the effect of the London assessment studies on this beautiful area of
84
land in Leyton and Walthamstow. He had the opportunity when he rose to his feet to say, "In no way will any road touch that beautiful piece of land, those marshes." I invite him to say that.
Mr. Bottomley rose—
Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister going to say that?
Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get rather more support from this side of the House in an effort to keep his speech going than he is getting from his own side. Apart from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman's speech is being heard not only in total silence by his own side but also in the total absence of his hon. Friends. He makes sweeping accusations that it would be better and more courteous for the House to ignore.
This is one of the hon. Gentleman's typical speeches. It might be better if he turned to specific details that the House might wish to consider at this stage. There are many points that other hon. Members may wish to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about three quarters of an hour without making any specific points. It may be that he has not got many specific things to say, but that will be for the House and for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to judge.
Mr. Cohen: I have plenty of specific things to say. The Bill affects my constituency. I said at the beginning of my speech that it is being savaged by the Minister who is stealing our forest land. The land is in no other Member's constituency, so how can I expect other hon. Members, who are very busy, to come here? I have not asked them to do so. The Minister thinks that he can pick on one constituency, mine, and get away with it, but he has got another think coming to him.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Of course my hon. Friend knows—but perhaps the Minister would like to know, too—that the London group of Labour Members of Parliament supports what he is doing this evening. We have absolute confidence in our hon. Friend. Other hon. Members in the London group of Labour Members of Parliament do not need to speak on the subject, because no one can speak more eloquently, provide us with more information and best serve the House than my hon. Friend.
Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cohen: I shall gladly give way to the Minister. I hope that he will address this point of the central London assessment study and give a pledge that not an inch of his proposed roads will touch the Walthamstow and Leyton marshes.
Mr. Bottomley: I would not dream of accepting that invitation. That would be out of order and beyond the scope of the Bill.
I rose to intervene because I have just remembered that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport met the London group of Labour Members of Parliament a short time ago. I think that the hon. Gentleman was at that meeting. I hope that he will confirm that he was there.

85
I do not think that he raised that issue with my right hon. Friend. Again it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is not getting down to the specifics, that he has not taken advantage of previous opportunities to raise these issues and that for some reason he may be trying to ensure that the House forgets why he rose to speak in the first place. Other hon. Members remember what we are here for. We are not sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers what he is here for.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister's tactics are to try to divert hon. Members from considering the specifics, but he will not waylay me in that way. I had the date of the meeting with the London group of Labour Members of Parliament in my diary, but the Secretary of State for Transport cancelled the meeting at the very last minute. He rearranged it at the very last minute, too, by which time I had made other appointments. I shall give the Minister details of those other appointments, if he wants them.
Mr. Bottomley indicated dissent.
Mr. Cohen: Of course he does not want the details, but that is typical of the way that this Government behaves. It will be noted by everybody when they read the report of this debate in Hansard that the Minister refused to give any commitment or any sort of pledge that the central London assessment study will not lead to concrete motorway grey going all over the beautiful Walthamstow and Leytonstone marshes. Local people have been warned of his proposals. That is part of the Bill. It is one of the assaults on the green belt and open spaces that the Government are making on the people of Leyton and Leytonstone. They are stealing the forest land from the local people.
I wish to quote a letter from councillor John Plant—an appropriate name—the chairman of the London ecology committee. He said:
"You will be aware of the London traffic assessment studies which are currently under way and are due to report to the Minister for Roads and Traffic in May this year. The London Ecology Committee, which has all-party representation from 23 London boroughs, is very concerned at the effects that many of the options may have on London's open spaces and semi-natural environment."
The Minister is using Leyton as a guinea pig in taking away our forest land. It is his starting point; it will spread throughout London's open spaces and its natural and semi-natural environment. Mr. Plant continued:
"These are all places which are vital for the wellbeing of Londoners and give them some relief from the built-up areas where they live and work."
That is exactly the point that I made earlier. We are discussing the very air in which people in urban areas have to live. Mr. Plant said:
"In your constituency the enclosed map indicates the nature of the options, the most significant open spaces of nature conservation which could be affected, including the Essex filter beds site in the Lea Valley. That is part of a complex identification of metropolitan importance by my Committee as being under threat from the Government. An all-party delegation of the Committee, which included representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, has asked for a meeting with the Minister. Your support would be invaluable."
Needless to say, I gave my support. Here is a threat to Leyton's green and open space.
Water privatisation is another threat. It will have a terrible effect on green land, some of which is designated as sites of special scientific interest. The marshes in my area could be at risk. The Government think that ruins such as
86
the ancient Rose theatre are not worth preserving. They also think that sites of special scientific interest, where rare flora and fauna exist, are irrelevant and not worth saving when put against big business and the people who speculate to make millions out of assets that rightly belong to the people.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend told me about this Bill only the other day, and explained that there were double standards. He has fully demonstrated that in his remarks. Not long ago constituents from Kent massed outside the House, together with the Mujahideen of Kent—the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Government found £500 million to accommodate their wishes—not that that will satisfy all of them. When the Minister received representations from my hon. Friend's constituents, he turned a deaf ear to them. Is that what my hon. Friend is explaining to the House?
Mr. Cohen: There are not only double standards but hypocrisy in this matter. The £500 million for the Channel tunnel is in addition to the money that the Government are already pumping into Kent to ensure that most of the route is below ground so as not to disturb a few villages. The M11 link in Leyton runs past a densely populated area, but the Minister refused to provide so much as an extra penny so that it could be tunnelled. His insistence that the road should run above ground has carved Leyton and Leytonstone in half. Those are the sorts of double standards to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly referred.
Water privatisation will be a charter for the speculators, who will sell sites of special scientific interest, including the Leyton marshes. It is an assault on our green and open spaces. They are being given to the land speculators instead of being kept for the people of Leyton. In fact, Leyton should have had a great deal more open space. There was once a project for the M11 to be tunnelled along the whole of its route, with a linear park along the top.
Mr. Skinner: What is a linear park?
Mr. Cohen: The M11 would have been underground, so there would have been space on top of the tunnel. It was a wonderfully inventive scheme thought up by two brilliant engineers—the scheme is called "Lister/Goldsmith" after them—which would have provided a park along the length of the M11. That would have meant an enormous improvement to the environment of Leyton. It would have been a wonderful benefit to such a densely built-up area. The project was both feasible and sensible, but the Department of Transport put the boot in it. The Department allowed it in other areas such as Hatfield and, of course, it allowed it in Tory areas. Leyton was savaged by the Tories at the Department of Transport, aided and abetted by their friends at the Department of the Environment. That is now being compounded by this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was not present at the beginning of my speech, so I must explain to him that under the Bill the Government are stealing the forest land of Leyton. This attack on the green and open spaces of Leyton has made me very angry.
Mr. Skinner: We are supposed to be living in a green political age, with the Prime Minister masquerading as a green veteran in an anorak and sandals and eating brown rice. Yet the Government intend to rip out the forests—

87
what few there are—in Leyton. They are trying to kid the British people that they have suddenly latched on to environmental questions, yet they do not care tuppence about the environment when it comes to lining the pockets of speculators in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We have already covered that ground in general terms. We cannot recapitulate for the benefit of an hon. Member who was not present at the beginning of the debate.
Mr. Cohen: I should not wish to repeat—
Mr. Skinner: I was here before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to resume his speech.
Mr. Cohen: Although I would not wish to repeat my earlier remarks, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to say that the Prime Minister is masquerading. The reality is at issue, and the reality is that the right hon. Lady is stealing forest land from the people of Leyton and Leytonstone. The people have already been robbed of the proposed linear park, and my heart bleeds because we were denied it. It would have provided a wonderful environment for local people and their kids. We were robbed of it by a pernicious, vicious and anti-green Government who are now compounding their actions.
The so-called replacement land is a joke. I have here a letter from the director of the development office at Waltham Forest council, which explains what the replacement land is about. He wrote that the Department of Transport
"is to replace the forest land lost at the Green Man with land at Wanstead. The new land at Wanstead comprises two sites owned by the Thames Water Authority which were formerly part of the Wanstead Sewage Works."
The land is 2·5 miles away from Leyton on a busy road. It is inaccessible for pedestrians. They do not want to go to an old sewage works in Wanstead—they want their forest and open land near Leyton. The letter continues:
"As you will realise, they are located 2·2 km (1·5 miles) south-east of the main area of forest land to be lost at the Green Man"—
it is actually 2·5 miles.
"It could be said that at that distance they are little compensation for local people."
He is being deeply ironic. The land is no compensation.
"They will adjoin Wanstead park which the City also controls under the Epping Forest Act."
So Wanstead gets the green land. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is here tonight. I do not begrudge him or any other hon. Member the green land. That should be the natural course, but it should not be at the expense of the people of Leyton. It should not be stolen from Leyton and given to Wanstead. That is another example of giving to the already haves. Areas such as Leyton are already deprived of green open space land because they are so heavily built up and because Government cuts do not give the council the opportunity to provide open space land. The letter deals with the replacement land succinctly and shows what a joke it is.
We should remember that sewage land contains many toxic substances. We know from the example of Redbridge that when such land is built upon or walked on it can have
88
an adverse effect. We are offered a scrubby old sewage works. I do not think that we can trust the Department of Transport to put up the money to get it up to a decent standard.
Park land funding has been cut. The Department of Transport says that responsibility lies with the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Environment says that responsibility lies with the Department of Transport. They both get out of it. That is the cheek of it. The land will not be brought up to a proper standard. That is something for the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to argue. It cannot be claimed, however, that the land is a replacement for Leyton people.
The Minister is stealing our forest land and not providing an adequate replacement.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As it is now just over an hour since the hon. Gentleman started his speech, can he tell us how much land is being lost to the public in his constituency? What is the net loss in Leyton?
Mr Cohen: I am just about to come to that. I am coming to the specifics now. The Minister was not very specific about the central London assessment study and the land that is being taken from Waltham forest marshes to make a grey motorway. He was not specific when there was a prospect of another robbery of green open space land.
Mr. Skinner: Can I get this right? They are getting rid of forest, which they probably would not have done if it were owned by Terry Wogan or one of the other personalities who invest in forests. Are they proposing to replace it with beacons, bollards and the like?
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right about Terry Wogan, but I shall not pursue that line of argument. An amount of forest land is being stolen to make a roundabout for the M11 link road, which could have been a linear park. They are taking several acres of forest land for this roundabout and they are not replacing it with open space land in Leyton. They think Leyton does not matter. They do not care about Leyton. They do not care about built-up areas. They do not give a toss about them.
The Minister will not comment on saving the marshes. All he will say is that I am going on for too long. I will go on demanding my green land, forest land and park land all night if I am given an opportunity—which I know I will not—to stop him cheating the people of Leyton out of it.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman know, and will he tell us, what the net loss of land in his constituency is? What is the net addition of land available to people in his constituency?
Mr. Cohen: I am coming to that. My figures, however, are not manipulated, distorted and cheated figures which the agents tried to bounce on me in the negotiations. The figures were the biggest distortion I have seen for a long time. I will give the real figures.
Mr. Skinner: When my hon. Friend does that, will he tell us whether the area is bigger than St. James's park, Buckingham palace grounds or some of the other posh areas which the Minister would not dare to lay his hands on?
Mr. Cohen: I confess that the area is not as big as either of those, but it is vital. Whereas Buckingham palace grounds have just a family or two walking over them, my

89
forest land in Leyton, Leytonstone and Whipps Cross has thousands of families walking over it every weekend. It is crucial that that land should not be taken away without a proper replacement.
I shall give the figures as the Minister is so keen to hear them. They are not his Department's figures. I should make it clear that one acre of land is equivalent to 0·4047 hectares, and a hectare is equivalent to about 2·5 acres. The Minister can get his calculator out now, and he will be able to work out what I am talking about whether I use acres or hectares. To start with, 0·55 hectares is being taken. That does not sound much, but is 1·4 acres of prime forest land by the Green Man that is going to tarmac.
The acreage of the roundabout itself is useless as forest or recreational land for the people of Leyton. But that is just the start. The new roundabout will take up 4·13 acres—or 1·67 hectares—more than the present roundabout. In addition, the total open space that will be lost between the roundabout at the Green Man and Leyton high road is 13·6 acres, or 5·5 hectares. That represents an enormous amount of green land in my area, and the gardens and allotments will not be replaced. In an area of housing density such as Leyton, many people do not have their own gardens as they live in flats, and more houses are being converted into flats. They need their allotments to grow vegetables, especially given the prices of food in the Common Market because of the huge surpluses that the Government have accrued. Instead of bringing food prices down, they make people want to grow their own vegetables and to use allotment land for recreation. But that land is being taken away.
In addition to taking away people's gardens and allotments, the Government are taking away a playing field at Leytonstone House hospital without compensation. The truth is that the Government are robbing us of our open spaces. That is only on one side of the roundabout. On the other side of the roundabout, at Temple Mills, on the other side of Leyton high road, we are losing another 3·5 acres, or 1·4 hectares—the Minister can get out his calculator. That includes a slice of Eastway sports centre which is also being nicked. It is part of Lea Valley regional park. A beautiful green area and a vital amenity for local people will be sliced into by the motorway-mad Minister without being replaced. All that green land will be covered in tarmac.
The Minister asked for the figures and I have given him the figures but he is nonchalant. He does not give a damn about all the green land being taken away from Leyton.
The Waltham Forest Guardian, another local paper, stated on 17 February 1989:
"There will be a 26 ft wide link across the interchange between Leyton and Wanstead Flats, said the conservators."
That land is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I was not consulted and the people of Leyton were not consulted on that. It represents more land being lost without proper compensation. I reiterate that it is a densely urban area where green land, open space and forest land are at an absolute premium. The Minister of Transport is snuffing it out without a thought for the people of Leyton.
I have given the Minister the figures and he has not jumped up to deny them. He is jumped up, but he has not jumped up to deny the figures. It will be noted in Hansard that the Minister could not repudiate the figures.
There is a further adverse aspect of the road scheme and the Bill which is taking forest land from Leyton without compensation to the people who live there. Mr. John
90
Goldsmith FRIBA is behind the Lister Goldsmith plan for that linear park which would have been such a wonderful innovation for the environment and people of Leyton. On 26 April he wrote to the Prime Minister because he felt so strongly about the deleterious effect of the road, saying:
"I have now witnessed a further 'development' of the A12 London to M11 link road as a result of the engineering particulars being revealed. Instead of the promised permanent landscaping along the fringe of the new routes we are now being told that this space is being required for pipes and ducts."
That was supposed to be permanent landscaping. We were promised a little green sward along the edge, but now it will be scrubby old land for the pipes and ducts. Mr. Goldsmith continued:
"Gardens to surviving housing are being further reduced to postage stamp size to house the extra cabling."
Mr. Skinner: What does he mean by postage-stamp size?
Mr. Cohen: He means that the people in those houses will have the smallest gardens imaginable. Yet the Bill will also take away their forest land and they will not even have their own gardens. Postage-stamp size means that their gardens will be minute because the Minister made a cock-up or perhaps deliberately promised landscaping when he knew all the time that the engineering work would require ducts, pipes and cables. He did not want to get into a row at any inquiry with people who have been denied their opportunity to get compensation. The underhand Minister has led them up the garden path, but they will not have much of a garden path left in future because of the Government's approach and their double standards.
If those people are to have such small gardens, there is all the more reason why they should have forest land, parks and open spaces in Leyton as some compensation, but the Minister could not care less.
Mr. Skinner: What kind of trees are in the forest?
Mr. Cohen: None of the Conservative Members have caught me out, but my hon. Friend has caught me out because I have not counted the trees. They are lovely green trees, oaks and elms, but my hon. Friend is leading me astray. They are beautiful trees. I have to confess to my hon. Friend that he has caught me out. I once tried to learn about trees and their leaves. I pinned a beautiful chart on my wall, but I am not better at identifying any particular trees.
Mr. Skinner: Are they deciduous or evergreen? Mr. Cohen: They are evergreens.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene from a sedentary position.
Mr Skinner: Quite frankly, if we are talking about saving a small forest or part of it, we should know about it. I think that there should be a site visit before any decision is taken to see what will be destroyed. If we had a site visit we would find out what sort of trees are there. For example, in London there are a lot of plane trees. In my part of the world there are many horse chestnut and sweet chestnuts in Clumber park and Sherwood forest. It all depends on the soil. There are many rhododendrons in this part of the world. I would bet diamonds that there are rhododendrons in that part of' the forest and they will be taken out.
Mr. Cohen: If I had known of my hon. Friend's interest I would have brushed up on the different trees on the land there. It is a lovely part of the forest to stroll through and I have rambled through it with the Epping forest ramblers. The fresh air is beautiful. Yet that is all to be taken away.
Mr. Skinner: There will not be gorse.
Mr. Cohen: There will be gorse. The forest will be made into a motorway.
Mr Frank Haynes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Nottinghamshire we have many trees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said? We have one particular tree called the major oak which is supposed to be connected with Robin Hood. With the growth in industry, slowly but surely the forest is being destroyed. There is a programme connected with Europe to replant that forest. The destruction of forests is shocking and I welcome my hon. Friend's speech on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not about Clumber park. Let us stick to the City of London (Various Powers) Bill.
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely mentioned the major oak. That is all. I am talking about my hon. Friend's forest. We are replanting the forest in Nottinghamshire, yet Epping Forest is being destroyed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clearly, I misunderstood. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was inviting the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to comment on Nottinghamshire, which would be out of order.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be more appropriate for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to take his two hon. Friends to the forest at the Green Man roundabout?
Mr. Cohen: I take heed of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would welcome hon. Gentlemen having a look at this part of the forest and, indeed, the whole forest. It is a beautiful amenity for local people. I would welcome a site visit. We need forest preserved in Nottinghamshire just as we do in Leyton. The people of Leyton do not want their forest land taken away.
Mr. Haynes: May I suggest that we take a picnic to the area and invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are not liking my interventions today? That may make you feel a bit better.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman to order only once and today is the first time that I have ever apologised from the Chair to anyone.
Mr. Cohen: It is nice walking land and it is green, unlike everything else which is grey and full of lorries and pollution. That is what is so welcome about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right about the problem of oaks in Nottingham not being replanted properly, and it is the same in Whipps Cross. I had a go at the Conservatives who run the City of London about the neglect of Epping forest, particularly in my area. One aspect of that neglect is that they have not replanted properly, so the forest is being run down. That is happening in many other areas, for example, where people like Terry Wogan plant trees for tax benefits. Areas of natural woodland are beng neglected.
92
I am sure that in Nottinghamshire areas are being run down because the Government are too mean to put up the money for the National Trust and Nature Conservancy Council to replant properly for the future. That is a tragedy. Today we see trees that were planted in the 1850s, not recently planted trees. That is because the Government were too mean to have a proper green policy in the past decade.
Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that a couple of years ago we had a hurricane and that many trees fell on that October night? As a result nearly every hon. Member said how sad it was and that a big replacement programme was needed throughout southern England. The Government had to be pushed and shoved to find sufficient money to assist. Hyde park, Kew gardens and many beautiful places in and around London were affected seriously. Less than a year later the same Government are trying to kid us on that their interest in trees and forests at that time was real. They do not care about little old Leyton and its little patch. It is one thing when something affects their people and another for us. Those of us who want to see the greenery and forest remain in Leyton have perfect justification to say to my hon. Friend, "Carry on with this point."
Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but I must tell him that at the time of the hurricane the Government did not care. They did not fund in full the replacement programme.
Mr. Skinner: They were forced to.
Mr. Cohen: They did not refund local authorities in full. All sorts of ancillary costs were left to local authorities, such as Waltham Forest, to meet. Funding certainly was not 100 per cent. Moreover, my local authority is subject to rating penalties. For every pound that it spent, the ratepayers spent £1·60 because of the Government's meanness. That was exacerbated by the Government not funding the cost in full.
Mr. Haynes: Where there are trees there are birds, and there is nothing better than getting up in the early morning, particularly in Leyton, and listening to the birds singing. If there are no trees there will be no birds, and that is another reason why my hon. Friend is worried about Leyton.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes another genuine point, but I shall not go into it, except to say that I agree that birds, indeed all flora and fauna, are important and should be recognised as important. We should not have tarmac spread all over this green land.
The Minister asked for specifics and I have already given him the total acreage, but he failed to respond. I shall continue because I have much more detail. Mr. Goldsmith said:
"An existing girls' school science block annexe will be perched on the edge of the cutting"—
it will right by the side of the road—
"and a local authority is being made to find the cost of double glazing and the perpetual ventilation cost. This ventilation running cost is the same for the local residents too and they get no relief."
That shows how the Minister through the Bill is harming the people of Leyton. Mr. Goldsmith continues:
"Judging by the treatment that the Beazer Enterprise Route has received"—
that was a way of getting at least some cover for the road—

93
"from the Department where a commuted sum of £4 million has been demanded by the Department"—
that is a scandal; the Department should be putting up the £4 million—
"for future maintenance of the private housing over the road tunnel, now sadly abandoned as a result"—
sabotaged by the Minister and his Department—
"I now believe this precedent should work in reverse and that tenants who are boxed up by sound insulation and can only breathe in their homes via a fan and, or cooler should receive a substantial capital sum to offset the running cost of such equipment together with its replacement cost at some future date. I will suggest through a copy of this letter to the press that such a sum should be half the value of the house at present market prices."
Mr. Goldsmith then asks the Prime Minister, "Do you agree?" He concludes the letter:
"Of course, if these urban roads were properly designed for the 20th Century with protective lids, such costs would not be necessary."
The Department demanded money up front from the enterprise group and the council for covering the road, but it will not provide the money for ventilation for local people.
I now come to another aspect of the matter. When I spoke to the negotiators and said what I wanted as compensation for this piece of forest being stolen from the people of Leyton by the Department of Transport, I was told by the agents, "What you are asking for is peanuts, Mr. Cohen." They contacted the Department of Transport, which said, "No deal." That was the very last day before the date was set for debating the Bill. They did not come up with any offer before that, presumably under the orders of the Department of Transport, which did not want to make any deals. What they came up with as a replacement—I have the maps here if any hon. Member wants to see them—was what. I can only describe as "SLOAP"—surplus land left over after planning. It is what is left over after a building has been put up—perhaps a few metres of land, which may be landlocked and which cannot be used in the planning. It is rubbish. With the Department of Transport it is a slippery slope and when we got on to "SLOAP" the negotiations went downhill all the way.
Some hon. Members may think that the offer of replacement land was genuine because there are six items—
Mr. Skinner: When did the Minister slope off?
Mr. Cohen: It was not a genuine offer because it was land at the side of the road to replace the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton.
I shall summarise what is on the map. The first piece of land was by Eastway near Temple Mills marshalling yard. It was a thin slither of land along the road next to industrial land. I was after a proper replacement for forest land, a decent open space or park land, but all I got was this leftover land which must be the responsibility of the Department of Transport anyway because it is part of its plans. The land is inaccessible to local residents and particularly to pedestrians because it is blocked on one side by the marshalling yard and on the other by industrial land. The nearest residents would have to get over two—not one—2m high barriers on each side of the road to have access to the land. Even if they got past one barrier, managed to get across the road without being run over and climbed the other barrier they would need a pair of skis to get down on to the land. That slither of land is useless.
94
The second bit of land was at the back of Trelawn road near the railway station, which is also right next to the link road. That was another narrow sliver of land. Its only use could be as the back gardens of the houses in Trelawn road. The Minister and his Department know that the only common sense use for the land is as the back gardens of the people in that road. It will not be much good to them because it will be right up against the main road, but if it is not used for that, it will just be some leftover land which the Department will be responsible for keeping tidy. It is no compensation for the forest land stolen at the Green Man roundabout.
The third bit of "SLOAP" was another thin sliver of land between Grove Green road and the link road. My hon. Friends do not know the area, so I should tell them that Grove Green road and the link road will run parallel to each other, and even after this major motorway project gets under way, Grove Green road will still carry about 1,000 vehicles an hour. It will still be a busy local road, yet the Department wanted to offer as compensation the bit of land between the two. If children were kicking a ball about, it could run on to either of the two main roads and they could get run over. Yet that was supposed to be a replacement for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton by the Department of Transport.
Mr. Haynes: That is a very interesting point because it raises the question of road safety. The Minister regularly preaches at the Dispatch Box about road safety, yet here the Department is creating a problem for youngsters and adults who could be run down by vehicles on that busy road.
Mr. Skinner: Two busy roads.
Mr. Cohen: Two busy roads, as my hon. Friend said. That is why it was ridiculous to put that land up as a replacement for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton.
Mr. Skinner: How wide was the other bit?
Mr. Cohen: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact size, but it was not very large. One expects kids to play football in open spaces, but in this case the right and left wings would be main roads. Not many of those kids would end up playing for Leyton Orient because as soon as they put the ball wide, they would get run over.
The fourth bit of "SLOAP" is even more disgusting. That was near Connaught school, abutting directly on the link road. It was shameful that the Department refused to tunnel at least that small part of the road. They would not tunnel any of the rest of it, and they refused at the very minimum to make this little bit of tunnel by the girls' school. That was a disgraceful aspect of the Minister's policy. Parts of the annexe to the school will be only 2 m away from a busy motorway. How can those pupils study properly? The Minister even refused to put up the money to double-glaze the annexe. If the Department must offer this so-called "SLOAP" by the side of the road, it should at least—the local residents may have something to say about it—place compulsory purchase orders on the few houses between that bit of land and the school. The Department would have to pay proper compensation so that those affected could be properly rehoused. At least the residents would then have more land which could be used for dual purposes—as green land for the school and park land for the community. The area would not have been

95
very big even then. I asked the Department to do at least that, but the Department and the Minister were too mean and would not get their act together. The land is useless to the school because there is no proper direct access to it.
In any case, there is a serious housing crisis in my area. If I had time, I would deal with that in greater detail. The council cannot place compulsory purchase orders on the properties and rehouse the occupants to the standard that would be required because it does not have the money or the houses; it has an enormous waiting list. That option, too, was therefore ruled out by the Department of Transport.
The motorway will create enormous problems for the school. The construction of the road is already posing problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) talked about road safety and the safety of the children. The teachers and the education authority have expressed their concern and anxiety about the children's safety and about the fact that the Department is doing nothing about it. The Department of Education and Science will come up against the problem. It will have to decide what to do about the site—perhaps on a replacement school. It is the same old story—the machinery of Government working for a mean Government: the Department of Transport says that it is the concern of the Department of Education and Science; the Department of Education and Science says that it is the concern of the Department of Transport and in the meantime those kids are at risk, that school has a rotten environment and the Department of Transport steals our forest land without giving us proper replacement land. That bit of "SLOAP" was also useless.
The fifth bit of "SLOAP" was a small triangle of land in Grove Green road, again abutting on the motorway—the M11 link road—at Nos. 481 to 493 Grove Green road. Yet again the Department would not place compulsory purchase orders on the houses and provide generous compensation for the residents, although that would have allowed us to get a small bit of land together. It would still have been very small and not a good environment. The so-called "SLOAP" is a useless set of blobs of land not linked together and adjacent to the road. That is how the Department tried to brush me off, having nicked the forest land in Leyton. As hon. Members can imagine, I was not prepared to put up with that nonsense.
The last bit of "SLOAP" was a small sliver between Fillebrook road and the link road. It is unusable. It has exactly the same drawbacks as the bit of Grove Green road that I described, where the green land is between the two roads. It was right up against the most dangerous and busiest point of the motorway—the Green Man roundabout interchange, with which the Bill deals.
None of that land could be regarded as a proper replacement for the forest land stolen by the Government from the people of Leyton—not by any stretch of the imagination. There should have been a linear park anyway. All these "SLOAPs—
Mr. Skinner: Where does that word come from?
Mr. Cohen: It is a planning term, and I was chairman of planning in the London borough of Waltham Forest. I think that they thought that they could pull the wool over
96
my eyes because I had no planning experience, but I am not so easily fooled when it comes to matters affecting my constituency.
In the end, the Department of Transport will have to hand over all these pieces of land. They are there because the Department refused the linear park option and carved a motorway through Leyton and Leytonstone, with adverse effects on local residents. These little bits of land have been left over. They will go to the local authority, which will have to manage them. If that does not happen, the Department of Transport will be under enormous pressure to keep the land in good shape. I shall be asking questions in the House and, frankly, the Minister's life and that of his successors will be hell. Of course, the Department will palm off the land. We were not going to be fooled by that nonsense.
Let me draw attention to another letter from the director of the development department, who said:
"My understanding is that you have a meeting with the Department shortly to discuss your objection to the Bill. I understand that the Department intends to draw to your attention the various small open spaces alongside the link road through Leyton—for instance, off Grove Green road, Fillebrook road and Ashbridge road. These total about one hectare—2·4 acres in all. By and large, these are narrow spaces, which are simply undevelopable areas left over from the Department's CPOs."
Mr. Skinner: Slithers.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, slithers.
The letter continues:
"They are of limited visual value only."
One would expect that, given that they are right on top of the motorway. It goes on:
"Few have any recreational potential. These open spaces also include land currently occupied by church land which LRT want for replacement car parking".
The officer showed that the offer from the Department of Transport was rubbish.
The Minister and the House will want to know what I specifically asked for to replace the forest land that had been stolen. I am a pragmatist.
Mr. Skinner: No, you are not.
Mr. Cohen: Well my hon. Friend may not think so, but I am pragmatic and I wanted a linear park and all the road in a tunnel.
Mr. Skinner: I do not believe that that is being pragmatic. My hon. Friend should reflect on what he has just said. He was negotiating a deal and I do not believe that that was being pragmatic. He was faced with the machinery of state and realised that he could get something for his constituents—a linear park—where kids could play and which would exist for a lifetime and beyond. My hon. Friend did the right thing. The truth is that it is clear that the Government were only interested in stealing the land and they did not want any conclusion to be reached. I do not believe that my hon. Friend was being pragmatic; he was being sensible. He was working on behalf of his constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will not use that word, because it has been used by a lot of people just lately. There is a bloke who sits on the Bench near me who has been using it just now.
Mr. Cohen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind words. I was trying to do a deal. I had wanted a linear park and the road in a tunnel, but I knew that this was a small Bill, and that there was no way in which my request could be

97
granted at this stage in the proceedings and that, therefore, I had to come to a deal. Therefore, what I asked for was limited—just a replacement for that forest land stolen by the Department of Transport, which had given no proper replacement land.
All I wanted was a deal with some quid pro quo in relation to the land stolen—I did not want the whole lot replaced. When I went to the agent for Sherwood and Co.—the agent for the City of London—and described what I wanted, she described it as peanuts in relation to the road scheme. She said that she would take my request back to the Department of Transport to see whether I could get the peanuts that I wanted. I must say that I was rather worried as I thought that I had underbid and that I could have got more for Leyton. For a while I was panic-stricken, but then I thought that I had put in my bid and should stick by it. Then my secretary got a phone call to say that the Department of Transport said "No deal" It would not even offer the peanuts for the forest land stolen from the people of Leyton. That shows just how mean the Government are.
It is right that the House should know what I asked for —that is a genuine request—as a replacement for the forest land stolen—
Mr. Skinner: Instead of a linear park?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, it was instead of a linear park, but as a replacement for the forestry land stolen by the Department. Green land is at a premium in my area and I appreciate that it is not easy to get a replacement, but at least I thought that the Department could do something about open spaces and parks as compensation. I said that I had Cann Hall park coming on stream in my area. It is meant to be a play area for six to 12-year-olds, a dual use kick-about area. The officers at the council described it as
"a preliminary scheme for this site which is currently vacant involving a 6 to 12s play area, kick-about area and a sitting-out area, which would cost about £200,000."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would agree that that is peanuts. In any case that park should have been provided for by rate support grant and capital funds. The Government are denying the children in that heavily built up area the opportunity of having a little kickabout.
I also asked about Skeltons lane, which is a play area for the six to 12-year-olds, and about servicing work at City farm. The officer said:
"Improvements at this park, which might involve providing a city farm, a six to 12s play area, and new planting, would cost about £230,000."
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover talked about birds, but it is important that the kids in an urban area should also have a look at the animals, and learn about them. We had the chance to set up such a project. It should have been done straight out of the rate support grant and the capital funds which the Government have cut. However, they refused to put up the money. We are talking about absolute peanuts.
Harrow road is a play area for the under-fives. That small site—
Mr. Skinner: We could have got that money out of Common Market fraud.
Mr. Cohen: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The money that we are talking about is peanuts compared with the money involved in Common Market fraud.
98
The officer said of Harrow road:
"This small site next to the Acacia nursery could be laid out as an under-fives play area with planting and new fencing. A scheme here would cost about £50,000."
However, we then received a phone call from the Minister saying, "No deal—we cannot afford it." The Government can afford Trident missiles, but they cannot afford £50,000. What a disgrace that is.
That was basically the list for which I asked. I had the forest in mind, because the Government are stealing forest land without giving compensation. Therefore, I wanted something done for the forest in my area. I shall read the list, which might seem long, but is not really. It is a sensible list, detailing what should have been done to the forest if the conservators were doing their jobs properly and if the City of London was really responsible for the forest. It merely has nominal responsibility for it.
I told the officers that there could be improvements to Epping forest land, and amenities in Leyton. First, I asked about improved rubbish clearance, which would be sensible, and would be popular locally. The area gets full of litter because it is heavily used.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has a good list but there is no need for including rubbish clearance because it is covered already. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment go round clearing up these places. He carries the bag and its "bag it and bin it." Therefore, I do not see why he should worry about that problem.
Mr. Cohen: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that they do not reach as far as Leyton and Leytonstone. They would be welcome to come along and clear up the rubbish, as would the Minister who is present. I extend an open invitation to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, whose Department is stealing the forest land, to come along and tidy up the area that is being left. Again, we receive an impassive response from the Minister. He certainly will not put up the small amount of money to do that job properly.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps, while the hon. Gentleman, together with his hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), are counting the trees at the Green Man roundabout, which is one of the commitments that have been offered and accepted by the hon. Members, I might come to see what the situation is and, if necessary, help.
May I make it plain that the Government support this part of the Bill, and that 40 per cent. of the cost of the Hackney to M11 link is for environmental projection and improvement. It is plain that it is difficult for the House to consider the details because, in a long speech, the hon. Gentleman has not put them forward. The scheme offers great advantages and much money has been spent on environmental protection. It is also plain that most people believe that the exchange land offered will provide net benefits, both for Leyton and for the forest.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I remind the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that he has been speaking for nearly two hours and there are other hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate?
Mr. Cohen: I do not like saying harsh words, so I shall put this gently, Mr. Speaker. You were not here at the beginning of the debate, when I said that this Bill adversely

99
affects my constituency and only my constituency. Others are generally content with it. I need to get that point over, and I appreciate that you did not hear my opening comments—
Mr. Skinner: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend for the past hour and a half and I think that his is an extraordinary performance by a Member of Parliament fighting on behalf of his constituency. I have seen other examples of this, I remember the Father of the House fighting for almost four hours against a proposition to blight a large part of his area. He got stuck in and somehow managed to succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will do the same.
I want to know whether the Minister's intervention a moment ago was helpful. Was there anything in it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point is that, although the hon. Gentleman has every right to make his points on behalf of his constituents, if he does not give the Minister the chance to reply he will never know whether he is making a concession.
Mr. Cohen: If the Minister does not get the chance to speak in this limited debate, he can write to me offering to come and clear away rubbish in this part of the forest. Or he can offer to replace the land. I have already heard the Minister's response from the agent. When he told me that what I had asked for was peanuts, he went to the Department. He may have spoken to the Minister, for all I know—he certainly spoke to one of his minions. The Department said, "No deal."
I am still hoping to change the Minister's mind, but I have no confidence that he will change it, just as I have no confidence in his intervention. The only land replacement that he mentioned was the "SLOAP" that I have referred to—he based his case on it. That does not give me much confidence.
As I was saying, I asked for rubbish clearance. Then I asked for the restoration of the ancient woodlands at Whipps Cross. We have a little patch of ancient woodlands there which has fallen into disuse and been run down due to the Conservatives' and the City of London's neglect of Leyton. It is not a Tory area, so the Government do not want to save those ancient woodlands or give them the respect due to them—
Mr. Skinner: What does my hon. Friend mean by "ancient"?
Mr. Cohen: They might even date back to BC.—I do not know the age of the trees. However, I am told that it is a precious piece of land—
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with those remarks, which are an insult to the integrity of the superintendent of the City Corporation. These ancient woodlands have been disappearing as a result of natural soil causes. So he must not talk about costs, because at no stage has any money for the replacement of the woodlands been considered—this is a natural disappearance. The rest of what the hon. Gentleman said may be right, but he must not attack servants of the corporation who are doing a first-class job.
Mr. Cohen: Nevertheless, they have allowed the woodlands to decline. What is more, they have not put
100
enough effort into restoring them. Conservatives are much more interested in putting their money into other areas; they do not see Leyton as a priority, with the result that our ancient woodlands are being destroyed more quickly than other areas.
My action plan to save the woodlands was not unreasonable—it should have been implemented anyway. It is a scandal that the Department of Transport rejected it.
Next, I asked for action to plant avenue trees in Ferndale road at Wanstead flats—not an unreasonable request—and to provide proper disposal facilities for the chemical toilets at the fair at Sydney road. That, too, is something that should have been done anyway.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that in other parts of the country, for example in the industrial north, slag heaps have been reclaimed and the areas planted with trees and regrassed? The fact that soil has been affected by chemicals is no disincentive to replanting trees, to reseed and redevelop natural woodland areas.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The disincentive to the Government is money and they will not put up a penny for areas such as mine. They say that proper replacement is a bit of old sewage land 2·5 miles away in Wanstead. They should be replanting trees.
Mr. Haynes: Nottinghamshire council is Labour controlled and it is replacing trees right, left and centre in the county. I said on Thursday night that I hope when the Speaker retires he will move into that beautiful county because he likes to go there. He will see that trees are planted. My hon. Friend is right. The Minister will not find the money to replace trees because all that the Government want to do is to destroy them.
Mr. Cohen: The Speaker has much respect for trees, green land and open spaces where he likes to ride his horse. He certainly has more respect for open space and forest land than the Minister for Roads and Traffic. The Minister is stealing forest land in Leyton.
I asked about improving the Hellow ponds at Whipps Cross for boating. They have not changed since 1909. The Conservators have not prepared a boating plan for that area. It is a lovely recreational area for local people but it could be improved. However, the Government are too mean to improve it. I asked about providing disability access, decent paths in the forest for wheelchairs. That is a sensible suggestion and Conservatives in the City of London and the Minister should have taken it up. I asked for peanuts and the agents have admitted that. Unfortunately, I underbid because all the things that I asked for were obvious and should have been done before.
I did not ask for a great deal. I asked for improved lighting on the footpaths, especially in Bushwood which is around the forest area. We all know that terrible problems are caused by poor lighting, but I shall not go into that because I know that time is short. I asked for nature trails and educational services for the kiddies to enjoy the forest and for a forest craft centre. That would bring in the Nature Conservancy Council to prepare a plan and upgrade and improve the forest. Those are sensible suggestions and two other possibilities were thrown in.
When the council officers put up the next two suggestions I was not very impressed. They were about

101
land at Riverbourne E11 which is just outside my constituency. It is an area about 1·2 km north of the Green Man off Snaresbrook road. It is open woodland and owned, oddly enough, by the London borough of Redbridge which has done us no favours. It immediately adjoins the forest and is separated from it by a concrete panel fence. Redbridge currently treats it as an amenity open space for its adjoining housing estate. That could have been opened up as a bit of green along with the land to the rear of 6 to 30 Sydney road. That is in my constituency, but right on the border and out of the way. It would be nice to use that and it could be provided at low cost. This is a small vacant site of about 0·2 hectares—0·5 acres·which we understand is privately owned and not fenced off from the adjoining forest land. It is about 1·8 km from the Green Man. That is forest land that could and should be used anyway, although as it is on a small scale, it will not compensate for the forest land that has been stolen from my constituents. That was what I asked for. Does the Minister agree that what I asked for was peanuts?
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask me. I can confirm that both the size of the forest and the amounts of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of construction of the road. During this debate, it has been established that the environment will improve in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and outside. We have established that, on my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency with him, he did not raise these matters. We have confirmed that he did not raise them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when they were at a meeting with the London group of Labour Members of Parliament. When I went to the Green Man roundabout on Friday—a few days ago—I did not see that many trees or people in the middle of the roundabout, which is what the hon. Gentleman has been discussing for the past over two hours.
Mr. Cohen: They are stealing the forest land and the green land in my constituency. I have given the figures for which the Minister asked, showing the acreage that is being stolen. At the beginning, the Minister was dead keen for me to give him the figures, but when I did so he shut up. He could not respond to that. All he is offering is slum land, left over after planning. He claims that that is a replacement. That is a mean deception.
When the Minister came to Leytonstone, in the very first few minutes the press asked him whether he would answer questions about the Green Man roundabout and the tunnelling of the road. The local councillors, the chief executive and the planning officer asked the same thing. The Minister said that he was not there to discuss that and he refused to discuss it. He put a block on it. I will get all those who asked him about that, if he wants to see them again. He cannot fool the press. They asked questions and they were mad keen to get the answers, to get something out of the Department of Transport, but he put a block on it. Now he has the cheek to come here and say that the question was not raised.
Mr. Bottomley: We have established during this debate, and certainly during the hon. Gentleman's speech, most of the points that might have been made otherwise on behalf of the Department of Transport in support of the Bill and its Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman brings together these witnesses, whether they confirm what I said or what he claims that I said, they will know that I walked up and
102
down the high street with the hon. Gentleman. I said, "This is Harry Cohen" and one or two said, "Yes, we know." Others said, "Come on, let's go round and see the improvements that the Department of Transport has made on the existing road and, by the way, can we look forward to the Hackney-M11 link, which will provide the major environmental improvement in the constituency, casualty reduction and the opportunity of more jobs?" All three would be well served by the proposed road, which this Bill would help.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister came along and did his normal PR exercise, posed for the photos, planted a tree and treated it as fun and games. He made a big show of it. He wanted to stay well in. When it came to the substance, he flopped it. He refused to answer. In the first two minutes, the press asked him questions about the new M11 link, about getting some more tunnels and the Beazer scheme, which would have at least meant more tunnel in various parts of the road, but he said that he was not there to answer such questions and put a block on them, which was a disgrace.
Mr. Keaton wrote to me on 2 May. He explained
"Perhaps I could add that as can be seen from the Bill the conservators are required to keep forest land unenclosed and unbuilt on as open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. In addition, they are required under the 1978 Act to maintain the forest's natural aspects."
I agree with that. I understand that it is difficult to find replacement land in a busy, urban, built-up area. There are planning problems, and they are not solved by the "sloap". However, at the very least, my demand could halve been met. I asked for more open space, for parks to be upgraded and for improvements to be made to the running of the forest in my constituency.
The more I think about these matters and the longer that the debate continues, the more I think that I underbid, especially when the representative of the agents said that I was asking for peanuts. Replacement land should have been provided to take account of the forest land that would be lost. Anyone who reads the report of the debate will understand that what I asked for was reasonable.
One of the results of the scheme is that the Department of Transport is making thousands of pounds every day against the would-be construction costs. The result of high interest rates is that prices are coming down. At the very least, price increases are slowing down. Prices are not as high as were anticipated by the Department. As I have said, the Department is making thousands of pounds every day and every week, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is happy to drag out the matter for that reason. At the same time, it is not prepared to pay peanuts for the improvement of the environment in my constituency.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: How much do you want, Harry?
Mr. Cohen: I have provided the figures. I have made it clear that they amount to about £500,000. The agent's representative talked about that as peanuts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could put that sum together. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends could do so as well. Let it be understood, however, that it is a lot of money for my area. Forest land is being stolen from my constituency. The money involved is nothing for many Conservative Members. I suppose that it amounts to no more than a few gins and tonic for them.
Mr. Skinner: We know that £500 million was offered to the Kent Tory-held constituencies so that the Members concerned could try to hang on to their seats. That was a Government-sponsored move through British Rail. The sum that my hon. Friend is talking about is peanuts when it is set against that. It is about 1,000 per cent. less than the amount which was offered to bail out Tory constituencies. However, my hon. Friend is talking about a working-class area.
Mr. Cohen: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has raised a good point. I am asking for less than £500,000 for the replacement of the land. Also involved is a small amount—about £250,000—for the forest land. Even if the total sum reached £1 million overall, it would still be peanuts when set against other items of expenditure. The Government will not give in because of their meanness to working-class people in working-class areas. They are prepared to steal forest land, but they are not prepared to provide a proper replacement.
After the so-called negotiations, during which what I asked for was described as peanuts, I received a letter from the council. It was written by the remembrancer of the Guildhall in the City of London. It is clear that the City of London does not remember Leyton to any great extent. It was the remembrancer but there is not much memory when it comes to decent services for Leyton. The letter to which I refer was headed "City of London (Various Powers) Bill". The body of the letter reads:
"I am sorry that it was not possible to reach an agreement on the road provisions in this Bill following our meeting of Wednesday."
The remembrancer must have been crying into his tea as he wrote that. The letter continues:
"As you will know from our agents, we put all the points that you raised to the Department of Transport."
Those are the points that I raised with the Minister and his Department. The remembrancer explained:
"They are to look at the land that you referred to but they were not attracted by the other suggestions that you raised."
Not attracted!
"I will be in touch again soon when I have more news."
After that I received a phone call, during which I was told that there was no deal. They were not attracted because they are not the ones who will suffer. Their land is not being stolen. They are not the people who will suffer by having their forest land stolen and not replaced. The people of Leyton are very attracted to receiving proper compensation and open land. For them, that represents the air that they breathe and the green land that they walk on. That reply exposes the disgraceful attitude shown by the Minister and his Department.
I shall not make a big speech about horse riding, but it is another aspect of the Bill. I shall speak about it only in so far as it affects the stealing of Leyton's forest land. With the Bill, there is a map of the whole forest, which stretches for an enormous distance, and which shows running through it pathways coloured orange indicating the routes that horse riders can take. If they leave those routes they are in trouble.
Those routes are shown to run through the whole of the forest, except in the Whipps Cross area in my constituency. That shows how little regard the Government have for the people of Leyton. Does that not strike the House and the Minister as being a little funny and as being a dirty, rotten deal for the people of Leyton?
104
I received a letter from Dr. F. B. O'Connor, director of the Nature Conservancy Council, which asks me to support the Bill. It deals mainly with clause 9, concerning the control of horse riding. I shall not be nasty about that particular clause, but Dr. O'Connor writes:
"Heavy usage by riders is causing severe damage to the flora and fauna in the forest."
What about Leyton? As I said, I shall not be nasty about horse riding, and if people want to ride then they should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, many people walk on the land in Leyton of which I speak. Leyton is a heavily built-up urban area and people come out every weekend to take a stroll there. They could get knocked over by the horses. What about the flora and fauna in that part of the forest? The City of London should put up money to ensure the replanting that I mentioned earlier.
In addition to all the mistreatment I have cited, the Minister is, through the Bill, using the City of London to steal our forest land and not replace it properly. To Dr. O'Connor and the Nature Conservancy Council I say that they should involve themselves in Whipps Cross. I am genuinely green and am happy to support them on environmental matters, but if Dr. O'Connor and the NCC want my support, they should also be concerned about my area and help protect it. They should put pressure on the City of London, the Department and the Minister to devise a plan to upgrade the Whipps Cross area of the forest and to improve the facilities there, so that the people of Leyton and Leytonstone can enjoy them.
I am angry with the City of London for doing the Department's dirty work for it. I acknowledge that the Department is the main culprit, but in selling out in the way that it has the City of London has not performed its role properly. That made me so angry that I went up to the Table Office. I am now preparing a Bill—which I may present as a ten-minute Bill—entitled the City of London (Abolition of Control of Epping Forest) Bill. I have got it in print.
The City of London could easily not have sold out Leyton and Leytonstone. It could have obtained compensation from this mean, motorway-grey Minister; it would have been peanuts to him. We have been let down badly. I am very tempted to present my Bill. I have not got the wording quite right yet—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That might be a good idea. It would enable others to take part in the debate, particularly the Minister, who could then answer some of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister will have plenty of opportunities. Perhaps another hon. Member may wish to raise the issue on the money resolution because of the strength of feeling that it has aroused, and the Minister will then have a chance to respond. We have a debate tomorrow on the soaring cost of the Government's publicity machine. How about a press release saying that the Government will replace the forest land that they are stealing from Leyton people? The Minister does not need to use the House; millions of pounds are being spent on the publicity machine.
I gather that you do not want me to talk about my Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I shall certainly raise it at a later stage. It has been provoked by the treatment of Leyton and Leytonstone residents. I shall propose that control be

105
taken from the City and redistributed among the local authorities. They will not relinquish their land without a fight and without obtaining proper compensation.
The resources for the running of the forest should be distributed according to how much land is used. In that way Leyton, Leytonstone and Whipps Cross will receive much more, because that land is used heavily by local people. Even if my Bill is not passed because of the Tory majority, at some stage in the future there will not be a Tory majority, and then the reckoning will come. I throw that out as a warning.
Mr. Harry Barnes: A threat.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, as a threat. I get very angry when my forest land is stolen and not replaced. I have a long memory.
Let me come to the substance of my speech. I want to give the House the history that has led to this legislation, and how the M11 link came about. The housing problems are immensely serious. Hundreds of people are about to be thrown on to the streets, but the Department of Transport has not given Waltham Forest the money to rehouse them. The Government claim to have provided the money when there was a Conservative-Liberal local authority in Waltham Forest a few years ago, but on investigation it turned out that the housing investment programme had been cut by only slightly less than the massive cut that had apparently been imposed. The money that the Government provided to rehouse people was really a huge cut in resources. Nobody noticed that this Government had apparently or allegedly given money to decant and rehouse those people.
Instead of putting that money, or that cut, aside to rehouse people, the Conservative-Liberal council used it to keep down the rates. That was its short-term ploy. It has resulted in an immense housing crisis for the people who live along the route. The council has been trying to rehouse those people, but this mean, motorway-mad Minister will not put up a penny to rehouse them. It will create an immense crisis, and I must spend some time on it.
After I have dealt with that crisis, I shall turn to education. I have already said a few words about Connaught school. It faces a real crisis because of the Bill and the provisions concerning the M11 link road. The school deserves a fair deal and proper facilities. The Minister was too mean to provide for tunnelling on one side or the other of that school, as he should have done. We were pressing for tunnelling right along the route, but at the very minimum he should have provided for a tunnel near to Connaught school.
Mr. Skinner: How long would the tunnel have been?
Mr. Cohen: It would have been literally a few metres and the cost would have been negligible over the life of the road, which will be there for at least 100 years. By not having a tunnel near the school, the Minister has condemned the pupils and teachers to absolute misery. It could lead to the demise of the school, although it has performed wonderfully well for the local community. It is now under a death threat because of the mean Department of Transport.
The Department has shifted the goal posts. The House knows that I am a simple sort of fellow. Two years ago the Department said that if we wanted a tunnel, private capital would be needed, that the public purse could not fund
106
tunnelling and that there would have to be a partnership with private interests. The local council did just that. It got the Beazer corporation to come up with a scheme.
Mr. Skinner: Who are they when they are at home?
Mr. Cohen: It is a big corporation. I have no specific details about it. It was after the work, and it was keen to get a lot of contracts. That was fair enough. It fitted in with the needs of the community. However, when we met the Minister we faced delaying tactics. Eventually, the Department of Transport put obstacles in the corporation's way. It said that the corporation had to put 4 million quid up front. The corporation refused to do that, so the Department of Transport blocked the bid; it killed it. So much for the Government's stated policy of using private capital. When the Minister's bluff was called, he destroyed the scheme.
Mr. Skinner: Who was it?
Mr. Cohen: It was the Minister.
The Government do not want working-class areas to benefit. Working-class areas such as Leyton can be cut up. They do not matter to this Minister, so long as he can ponce about the high street saying what a wonderful fellow he is by planting a few trees.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Cohen: And he can ponce about at the Dispatch Box as well.
Mr. Bottomley: I now understand that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood everything. He has misunderstood the fact that the proposal will make things better in Leyton. Furthermore, I was talking about the hon. Member to his constituents, not about myself. If praising the hon. Gentleman to his own constituents leads him to describe me in that way, we have reached a sorry state of affairs and I am sorry that we have had to listen to him for two and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to receive answers to his questions, he ought to have allowed time for them to be answered, or at least debated. The fact that he has monopolised most of the debate means that he thinks that they are worthless points that can easily be rubbished.
Mr. Cohen: That is certainly not true. We had phone calls from the Department of Transport saying, "No deal", yet the agents said that the amount involved was peanuts. It shows the Minister's contempt for Leyton. He now tiles to say something rather different. He should pull the other leg; it has bells on. We know that in reality he is still saying, "No deal", however he dresses it up in a public relations exercise. He is rather good at that, as he is rather good at going up and down the high street. He is doing the dirty on Leyton by stealing our forest land and not giving us proper compensation.
I want to deal with the long history—almost 40 years—of the M11, which has blighted the area. It is the longest blight caused by any road scheme. At a public inquiry in 1983, I, local residents, Mr. Goldsmith and others called for a tunnelled route. We did not object to the road in principle, provided that it was environmentally sound through the use of tunnelling. We said quite clearly that the Department of Transport's plans would divide the community and would cut Leyton and Leytonstone in half.

107
The linear route proposed by Mr. Goldsmith would have cost only a few million pounds—not a great deal more than the Department's scheme. It would have been in place for 100 or more years and provided enormous advantages for the local area. Instead, an obscenity of a road will carve up Leyton and Leytonstone. The Minister is mean. The scheme has made conservationists and the residents of Leyton and Leytonstone very angry.
It will be impossible to cross the road and the access to it is appalling. Some 280 homes will have been demolished, Connaught school has been annexed and made unusable, and Westdown road will have a high embankment with the motorway running along it—what a lovely visual aspect. The proposals for the Green Man are dangerous and unsightly.
When we put our case to the inspector at the inquiry, he concluded that tunnelling would be a good idea. He said:
"It should be a model for future motorways."
Yet the project was savaged and destroyed by the Department of Transport. The only concession in the Bill is tunnelling at the Green Man. The Department and the Minister show more concern for the cattle in Epping forest than for the people of Leyton and Leytonstone.
Local people, the council and environmentalist groups have tried to promote tunnelling. They have picked up the Minister's words and the Government's policies, yet they have been rebuffed. Since the M11 inquiry many other schemes have been tunnelled, even though they provide less environmental benefit than would be provided by tunnelling the M11. The A1M tunnel in Tory-controlled Hatfield received a Department of Transport grant of £8·87 million—£2,900 per linear metre. That would more than cover the cost of tunnelling the link road and providing a linear park. That solution is good enough for Hatfield, but too good for Leyton. Moreover, the Department is stealing our forest land and not replacing it.
The document produced by the action group on the link road says:
"Good enough for others. We are the Cinderella of the road building pantomime. While covered roads protect the forest in Epping, residents in Enfield and industry in Hatfield, thousands of men and women living close to the link road are content to suffer an open road, sometimes yards from their houses. What is good enough for others is good enough for us."
It is not, apparently. There is a lovely picture of the Bell common in Epping. It is a lovely bit of green land. The document says:
"There is a cricket club here where players and spectators can enjoy their game to the accompaniment of birdsong from the nearby forest trees. Late at night we might see some of the forest creatures crossing the common on their ancient paths. A splendidly English beauty spot. Who would guess that the M24 roars beneath the cricket pitch? Six lanes of traffic speeds through a well-lighted tunnel while up above on the surface life goes on as normal. The cricketers and animals are protected."
It is good enough for Epping, it should be good enough for Leyton. The Department is to steal a bit of land—
Mr. Skinner: Epping is Tory.
Mr. Cohen: Indeed it is. They are stealing a meagre but important bit of forest land. Hatfield got a huge grant from the Department. The document adds:
"A covered road is being built at Hatfield in Hertfordshire."
which, of course, is Tory.
108
"The A1M at this section is not in a highly residential neighbourhood nor one of natural beauty. It is an industrial district and there was local opposition when the Department of Transport proposed an unnecessary tunnel outside British Aerospace. Now all is revealed. A £15 million commercial complex is to be built on the tunnel lid. At the link road public inquiry, the Department of Transport denied that it would be possible to build on top of a covered road. Why, when they knew that such a scheme was being planned for Hatfield?"
That is another example of the double standards and hypocrisy that have been employed in the Government's dealings with Leyton, which they have given the worst in a shabby deal. Now the Department of Transport is stealing a small bit of forest land and not giving compensation.
The document mentions Enfield, and shows a picture of a lovely bit of greensward. It is not a sliver. Enfield is Tory, although we hope to make it Labour at the next general election. The document says:
"You are looking at the M25 motorway. Orbiting London and carrying thousands of vehicles each hour, each car, each van, each lorry emits stinking fumes and makes a great deal of noise. Perhaps you think we got the wrong photograph. We didn't. The M25 at Freezy Water Wall to Enfield runs through the Holmesdale tunnel. A linear park and a school playing field have been constructed on the lid of the tunnel. Residents in the houses on either side need never know the M25 is there. Connaught school in Leytonstone could have a playing field if the M11 link road were covered, and the homes of residents there and in Wanstead would be protected."
Precedents exist, but the Department will not give us a linear park. What an exhibition of meanness and callous, grey, motorway mindedness this is from the Minister. He has other plans to rip up the marshes, which are sites of special scientific interest. Twice I gave him the chance to get up to the Dispatch Box to—
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 24.

Division No. 198]

[10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Amess, David

Day, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkinson, David

Durant, Tony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dykes, Hugh

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Emery, Sir Peter

Beith, A. J.

Fallon, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Forth, Eric

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Freeman, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

Gill, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Glyn, Dr Alan

Butler, Chris

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hannam, John

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

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heddle, John

Cope, Rt Hon John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

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

109

Howarth, G. (Cannock & Bwd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Irving, Charles

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jessel, Toby

Sims, Roger

Knapman, Roger

Speller, Tony

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Stern, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Stevens, Lewis

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lightbown, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lilley, Peter

Summerson, Hugo

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lord, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maclean, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mans, Keith

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Marlow, Tony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thorne, Neil

Maude, Hon Francis

Thurnham, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tredinnick, David

Mellor, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Miller, Sir Hal

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mitchell, Sir David

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Wheeler, John

Neale, Gerrard

Widdecombe, Ann

Nicholls, Patrick

Wolfson, Mark

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wood, Timothy

Paice, James

Rathbone, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rhodes James, Robert

Mr. Steve Norris and

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

NOES

Allen, Graham

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cohen, Harry

Meale, Alan

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Michael, Alun

Corbyn, Jeremy

Patchett, Terry

Cousins, Jim

Pike, Peter L.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Fisher, Mark

Prescott, John

Foster, Derek

Ruddock, Joan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

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

Grocott, Bruce

Hardy, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Haynes, Frank

Mr. Harry Barnes and

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 22.

Division No. 199]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bottomley, Peter

Amess, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Atkins, Robert

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Burns, Simon

Beith, A. J.

Butler, Chris

Bellingham, Henry

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Boswell, Tim

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

110

Carrington, Matthew

Mans, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Marlow, Tony

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Maude, Hon Francis

Cope, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Couchman, James

Mellor, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Miller, Sir Hal

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

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Day, Stephen

Mitchell, Sir David

Devlin, Tim

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Dorrell, Stephen

Neale, Gerrard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Dykes, Hugh

Paice, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Sackville, Hon Tom

Forman, Nigel

Sayeed, Jonathan

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Forth, Eric

Sims, Roger

Freeman, Roger

Speller, Tony

Gale, Roger

Stern, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stevens, Lewis

Gill, Christopher

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Summerson, Hugo

Gregory, Conal

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hague, William

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Hannam, John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Harris, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Thorne, Neil

Heddle, John

Thurnham, Peter

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

Tredinnick, David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Jessel, Toby

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Knapman, Roger

Waller, Gary

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Wells, Bowen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Wheeler, John

Lightbown, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Lilley, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Livsey, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lord, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclean, David

Mr. Steve Norris and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Meale, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Michael, Alun

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Cousins, Jim

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Prescott, John

Foster, Derek

Ruddock, Joan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

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

Grocott, Bruce

Vaz, Keith

Hardy, Peter

Haynes, Frank

Tellers for the Noes:

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Harry Barnes and

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
10.23 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain land in Epping Forest temporarily occupied by him by virtue of that Act for road purposes;

(b) in reimbursing the Conservators of Epping Forest for such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of that Act as is attributable to its provisions relating to the grant to him for road purposes of rights over and interests in land; and

(c) an indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by them which are caused by or arise out of the grant of those rights and interests and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators, their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.

We want to ensure that, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bill that has just received its Second Reading, the payment of money provided by Parliament is authorised for expenditure by the Secretary of State for one of three purposes—to indemnify the conservators, to reimburse the conservators, and to reinstate the land in the forest temporarily occupied on behalf of the Secretary of State for road purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) moved the Second Reading in his characteristic expert way and with good humour. Sadly, he was followed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who, without humour and with an uncharacteristically long speech, managed to turn the fate of a roundabout into the fate of Epping forest. I invite the hon. Member for Leyton to take with him Thames Television or BBC London television cameras, and his hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), and to show them the part of the forest which justified his comment that forest land was being stolen.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been on his feet for many moments, but he has not yet mentioned money. If I had been in the Chair, I should have pulled him up by now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I feel certain that the Minister is going to talk about the money resolution.
Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Member for Ashfield must be moving from one part of the Chamber to another. In my introductory remarks, I mentioned each of the three parts of the money resolution.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Bottomley: Having finished my point of order, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Leyton who kindly gave way to me earlier.
Mr. Cohen: I am worried about the Government's press manipulation. Tomorrow, we are to have a debate on the
112
millions of pounds that they spend on press manipulation. If the Minister takes a camera team and points it from the forest towards the existing roundabout, it will see motorway, but if it points its cameras in the other direction it will see forest land. That is the land that the Minister is stealing from the people of Leyton.
Mr. Bottomley: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be over exciting his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the same way that he overexcited his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. When the hon. Member for Bolsover discovered the time that the first Division was called on the previous business, what the debate had been about and what the hon. Member for Leyton had managed to cover in just over two and a half hours, the face of the hon. Member for Bolsover was quite entertaining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the point that the deal with the corporation of London to look after Hampstead heath was in the great tradition of the City of London and the corporation. They have greatly cared for Epping forest and other parts of London and around, with proper trusteeship over the years. My hon. Friend also paid tribute to the staff, conservators and others who will do for Hampstead heath what they have done for other areas, for which they will receive praise from both sides of the House. I am sorry that working people have received implied insults from Opposition Members, but I hope that they will not receive any more.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am familiar with Highgate wood, which is well administered by the City of London and is a pleasant place. Will the Minister reflect that, under the plans, known as the east London road assessment study, put forward to his Department by consultants, part of Highgate wood would be damaged by the construction of a grade separated road? Has he received representations from the City of London on the matter and the loss of virgin forest, which was originally linked to Epping forest before the rest of north London became built up?
Mr. Bottomley: What the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss may be more properly debated in Committee tomorrow. Perhaps we shall then have the benefit of hearing from the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Leyton, as well as from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who has been sitting patiently listening to the speech of her hon. Friend the Member for Leyton on the merits of the different types of trees on the Green Man roundabout.
The Government are normally neutral about private Bills in which no major matter of principle is involved. This Bill and money resolution are exceptions. In principle, the Government strongly support the provisions of part II of the Bill which relates to the grant and exchange of lands. We are pleased to have reached agreement with the corporation of the City of London, as conservators of Epping forest, over the transfer of certain areas of forest land to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the construction of the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road. In exchange, the conservators have agreed to accept, for incorporation into the forest, an area of land near Wanstead park. Once that has been acquired from its owners, we shall put it into a fit state for forest use before handing it over to the conservators. The area of this land

113
exceeds not only that which will permanently be lost to the forest, but that which will be unavailable only during the construction period. There is a clear gain in that.
Mr. Cohen: Not to Leyton.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to talk during my speech. He spoke at great length himself, and if he will allow me to proceed, I shall be happy to give way to him shortly.
When the road is completed, the lid of the tunnel at George Green will be reinstated and the appearance of that green will be much as it is today. At the Green Man interchange—it is the place that most concerned the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover; I await a report from both hon. Members on how they count the different types of trees—there will be a net loss of green land of about 1·25 acres, due principally to the new road running parallel to Cambridge park and to the diversion of Whipps Cross road. The surface roundabout will be smaller. Again, the tunnel lid, while remaining in the ownership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, will be landscaped, be available for public use and dedicated to the forest. People will be able to reach it quite easily by means of the subways on the pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian route which will provide a safe link from Leyton flats to Wanstead flats.
The hon. Member for Leyton may remember our tour around the high street, where we saw the work that the Department has paid for on the A12 to make life better for his constituents, which shows our concern for them. Any suggestions to the contrary that might be inferred from his two and a half hours speech were, I am sure, unintended and due to his having been unable to find the right words. In any case, the hon. Gentleman, with his concern for vulnerable road users, will have noted that access to this central space is not regarded as particularly attractive for cyclists, equestrians or pedestrians. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me that he often sees cyclists or horse riding around the Green Man roundabout I shall stand corrected. I do not often see them there; I do not even see pedestrians there often—
Mr. Cohen: The roundabout will still be potentially dangerous because of the Department's plans.
Mr. Bottomley: Most people accept that it will be the reverse: it will be substantially safer.
The dimensions of the subways and the surface of this part of the route have been chosen to allow horse riders passage without dismounting and without the dangers of grade crossings on busy roads. The money in this resolution covers that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate dealt with the provisions that are relevant to equestrians.
In addition, the landscaping proposals associated with the road will provide an extra 11·5 acres of green space between the Green Man interchange and Temple Mills. Just over half of it will be open to the public; all of it will he readily visible to them. Both the size of the forest and the amount of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of construction of the road. That is in addition to the other environmental measures incorporated in the design of the road to mitigate its effects on its surroundings.
I repeat what was said in our earlier debate—that 40 per cent. of the cost of the A12 Hackney to M11 link is
114
devoted to environmental improvement or protection. That makes it one of the roads with the highest proportion of spending on environmental protection—
Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister compare that with the schemes that I suggested earlier in Epping and in Hatfield, not to mention others? Where are the measures to improve the environment to be implemented? They will go to Wanstead, not to Leyton or Leytonstone.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. We must go over the matter at another public occasion, not necessarily with an enormous audience, step by step; or perhaps I can arrange a briefing for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is a man of generous impulse, and I am sure that he will be willing to examine carefully the details of how it is proposed to build the road in his constituency. I am sorry that he has not so far had an opportunity to do that, but it is right for me to make the opportunity available to him again. If a road is ever again proposed in his constituency, perhaps we can explain it once, or even twice, to the hon. Gentleman so that he does not need two and a half hours to tell the House about what is proposed.
The hon. Gentleman's most significant point was about the A1 motorway at Hatfield. As I explained to him when he brought his local council and the representatives of Beazers to the Department, I think one and a half years ago, the A1M proposal came from the local authority. It asked if it could, at no extra expense to the Department, cap the road and develop on top. I said to the hon. Gentleman and his associates that if that could be put forward with the link on a time scale that was compatible with the road and if the extra cost did not have to be borne by the Department, we would not only cheerfully consider it, but might think it possible.
As the debate went on, some of the earlier estimates of cost turned out to be incorrect. Although there might not have been total agreement between Beazers and the Department, there was more general agreement towards the end of the discussion than there was at the beginning about the acceptable slopes, the gradients, for the road. Of course, that affected the potential cost. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton because I think that he was the first London Member to raise the question of private finance for roads in London. I hope that it will be possible to build on some of the ideas that he put forward on how to get private sector contributions for better roads for the environment, for industrial access, for jobs and to reduce road casualties. Conservatives may claim the credit for those ideas, but the hon. Gentleman thought of them first.
Mr. Cohen: I shall certainly not do that again because I and Beazers got a nasty snub for taking the Government at their word. Did not the Minister's Department say to Beazers that it wanted £4 million in advance for future maintenance costs? The Department refused to accept anything less and put the kibosh on it and demanded the payment of all the costs of Atkins, the consultants. The Department even demanded its own office costs so determined was it to kill that private scheme. I shall certainly not try that again because the Government are not being honest.
Mr Bottomley: If not tonight, then perhaps tomorrow, I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that his language has been a sort of scatter gun of insults—not all

115
of them cheerful—to all and sundry. Some of them were directed to hon. Members but we can bear that. However, he also said some rough things about people outside and I hope that they have the kindness to recognise how deeply the hon. Gentleman feels about the matter and how mercurially he sometimes reacts to what is going on. In the original conversation with Beazers, I said to the hon. Gentleman—I think to his satisfaction—that if a proposal came forward which did not involve public expense, the Department would be keen and happy to consider it. That was the original proposal and anyone who complains that the terms have changed is looking at the matter in the wrong way.
If the hon. Member for Leyton had an unanswerable case, he could have made it in about 10 minutes. However, he was aware that his case was answerable and perhaps he kept speaking so that many hon. Members who wanted to take part in the debate were not able to do so. We have established that the size of the forest and the amount of other green land in the vicinity of the route will increase as a result of the construction of the road. That is in addition to the other environmental measures incorporated in the design of the road to mitigate its effect on its surroundings.
Anyone who has an opportunity to drive out of London on the A12 will see the impact of the existing A12 trunk road on the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is right to be in favour of building this new road, and the fact that he wants to continue to add environmental considerations is a worthy aim. We should remember that all such issues are not covered by the Bill. The Bill and the resolution cover the exchange land, the indemnification and the compensation—the payment to the conservators of the forest. The hon. Gentleman should support the Bill, and I hope that on reflection he will realise that perhaps he was using a parliamentary tactic in voting against it. If he does not realise that, his constituents will not understand why he does not support the Bill.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that we can clear up one point in this debate on the money resolution, which touches on exchange land. Will my hon. Friend the Minister make it perfectly clear that his Department will meet the reasonable costs of putting that exchange land into a condition acceptable to the City of London, so that what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said in the previous debate about the Department being mean was as nonsensical as most of his other remarks, because it will have to meet the bills presented by the City?
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department will have to do that, but it is plain that the City of London (Various Powers) Bill is different from most private Bills. It is necessary to have this Bill to be able to make the exchange of land between the City of London and the conservators of Epping Forest. It is also necessary to have the new road to provide relief from the through traffic in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leyton. The Department will meet all the proper costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by the City, and people will want to ensure that neither the forest nor the City is harmed by this necessary road.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Earlier, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred
116
to this land as scrubby old sewage land, and we would all agree that that is right. However, is it not also right to say that the scrubbier the land, the greater will be the improvement when the Department gets hold of it?
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has, characteristically, made a point briefly that the hon. Member for Leyton failed to make at some length. The land, which is virtually unusable, will be treated so that it becomes part of the forest, and in future centuries it will be looked on with pride, just as the forest and most of Hampstead, as the hon. Member for Leyton said, are now. Therefore, it is important that we extend the forest, and the net provisions of the Bill of which we are discussing the money resolution are designed to enhance the environment, to grow the forest and to make sure that life improves.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister and the House will have heard me say that I do not begrudge the development of such land for the people of Wanstead. However, can the Minister, in his heart of hearts, say that this land will benefit the people of Leyton? It is supposed to be compensation for land that is going, and it is the fault of the Department that the land is going.
Mr. Bottomley: I hope to be able to explain to the hon. Gentleman—not at great length because I do not want to fall into his manner of speaking and mode of delivery, so perhaps on paper—that there will be more land in his constituency that will be both available and on view to his constituents than there is at the moment. If we go on making these exchanges across the Floor of the House we run the risk of boring our colleagues. The interest among those on Government Benches is rather more resilient and robust. I do not want to suggest that this is only because my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is here.
Mr. Corbyn: The Minister can rest assured that there is a great deal of interest in the Bill among Opposition Members and the only problem is that they are not all here. The Minister seems to be playing one bit of land off against the other. All of us would welcome the restoration of some scrubby old sewage land into parkland or forest, but that could be done anyway, irrespective of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is experiencing. As I understand it from visiting the area with him, the nub of his point is that he wants, and understandably so, extra parkland to compensate for the loss within the area of Waltham forest that is not some distance away. It is possible to do both things, so perhaps the Minister can address his mind to that.
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate concluded his speech with a reference to "1066 and All That". What we have in all this is the opportunity to improve Leyton and the forest. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have the exchange right, and we have. The detailed consideration can take place in Committee. When debating the money resolution it is time to restate the areas of land to which some of the sums are related. Having done that, perhaps the House would believe it right for me to conclude my remarks.
The net loss of open space at the Green Man interchange will be about 1·25 acres. The amount of land to be brought back in Leyton high road to the Green Man at Temple Mills will be 11·5 acres. On my reckoning, that is a factor of about 10:1. That strikes me as improvement

117
rather than deterioration. We have already established that for equestrians, pedestrians and cyclists, the Green Man interchange will improve.
We have had it accepted that the land in the forest will be greatly improved and added to. I believe that the House will probably want to follow Second Reading by passing the money resolution, and I commend it to the House. I hope that it will be possible to continue developing the environment and the number of jobs in east London and reducing the casualties. The development is much needed. Anyone who travels through the area will know that the road that we are discussing will provide uplift. The road has been needed for the past 10 years and I hope that tonight we shall move it on its way forward.
10.46 pm
Mr. Steve Norris: I am keen to support the money resolution and in so doing to refer to a part of the Bill, to which the resolution refers, that did not receive the exposure on Second Reading that I and many of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), would have liked. As I know that they wish to add their remarks to the resolution, I shall endeavour to be brief.
However, before referring specifically to the Bill I wish to pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for the, as ever, competent and professional way in which he introduced the Bill on Second Reading. I pay a short tribute to my predecessor, Sir John Biggs-Davison, who took a considerable interest in the matters that we are discussing and who was a great friend of Epping forest over many years.
I have received a great deal of help in evaluating the issues that concern the great natural inheritance of Epping forest from John Bessant, the superintendent of the forest, and the members of his committee, who kindly entertained me on an extremely instructive tour of the forest. The professional advice of the City remembrancer and his staff has been of great assistance to all hon. Members who have an interest in the forest. A distinguished former Member of this place, John Harvey, offered his advice to me from an early stage of my by-election campaign, for which I am extremely grateful.
The problem that is referred to in clauses 9 and 10 impacts immediately on the money resolution. Those clauses relate to the problem of horse riding in Epping forest and how the means of repairing the damage that is caused by it should be financed. Although Epping forest is the size of Ashdown forest—Ashdown forest is probably its nearest equivalent in the south of England—it is very much nearer to London than Ashdown. It receives a degree of use that is disproportionate to its size. I understand that there are about 600 registered riders who use Ashdown forest, and the superintendent's estimate of the likely number of riders who would be licensed to use Epping forest, if such a scheme were to be introduced, would be about 2,000. That is understandable and proper because many residents in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for example, the two Opposition Members who have had the good fortune to participate in an extraordinarily interesting debate this evening that will feature prominently in all our lives, enjoy going to the
118
forest. It is a marvellous lung of greenery and opportunity for recreation away from the busy city. However, there are many more of us today even than the City fathers envisaged when they rescued the forest from the depredations of enclosure.
The problem arises from overuse by a few irresponsible riders. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate identified problems in three areas. First, a few irresponsible riders are damaging the forest floor. Secondly, the forest floor is itself a vital part of the forest and its conservation is extremely important to the management of that amenity. Thirdly, a great deal of cost is attached to that exercise.
Given that clause 9 of the City of London (Various Powers) (No. 2) Bill 1971 gave the conservators the power to regulate the places that horse riders may use, we face the question of how avoiding the damage so caused should be financed, and whether riders should be made responsible for meeting at least part of that cost.
I have received, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, a great deal of correspondence about the matter, which is clearly divided into two camps. The horse riders' organisations take the view that any further incursion on the right to ride in the forest would be unreasonable. There have also been substantial representations—not least a petition, fetchingly bound in green velvet by Peggy Bitten, which contains 5,000 signatures—clearly expressing the view that responsibility for horse riding in the forest should be matched by a system of registration and charging to ensure that at least part of the cost of that exercise is met by the riders themselves.
The scheme suggested by the conservators incorporates a modest charge for enjoying the forest's facilities. I am pleased that the City of London authorities indicate a likely charge of about £50 per animal. Because the charge will essentially be levied on the beast, any person who wants simply an occasional ride from the stable will not find himself having to meet the entire cost of a licence but only the equivalent of a few pence per day. I note also that a charge of £40 to £50 would not represent a significant part of the cost of maintaining a horse. The various estimates I have seen—and I thank goodness that I have no female children—suggest that the cost of keeping a horse varies between £2,000 and £4,000 per year. I could not be more pleased that none of my children has expressed the vaguest interest in horse riding, and I propose ensuring that that remains the case.
Despite the fact that there is a good case to argue for registration to catch the few irresponsible riders, and for making a charge so that part of the cost of maintaining the rides is borne by the riders themselves, it is in a sense even more important to ensure that horse riders are not unreasonably discriminated against by any of the Bill's provisions. After all, riders are as entitled to use the forest as are walkers, bird watchers, or harriers. It was for that reason that, shortly after I returned to the House. I originally blocked the Bill to ensure that proper discussion took place between the City of London authorities and the various bodies that made representations to me.
I am delighted that the City authorities have expressed a willingness to delete the proposed subsections (3A), (3B) and (3C) in clause 9, and to make provision in clause 10 for a more general scheme of registration. Those are both useful changes, which go properly hand in hand with a system of registration and charging.

119
I think it entirely proper for the money resolution to be approved. It adheres to a spirit clearly enunciated in the Bill that those responsible for the consequences of their leisure activities in the forest should make at least some contribution to the cost of repairing the damage. A more general principle, which I consider vital, is that while the forest is there for the enjoyment of all who wish to go about their business lawfully, engaging in their chosen recreation, the conservators' overriding responsibility is not to favour riders, walkers, bird watchers, harriers or any other group, but to ensure that the forest that we inherited is passed on to future generations in at least as good a state as that in which we found it.
10.56 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I was not able to be present for much of the Second Reading debate—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) pointed out, I was detained elsewhere—but I think that it would have been difficult for me to catch your eye in any case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the interest in it.
I share the fascination of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and many others with the history of open space in London and the south-east. It is a history of the struggle of ordinary people who wanted space for themselves. They prevented the enclosures in Epping forest, just as in my constituency radical members of the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained Highbury fields for us.
I am concerned by some aspects of the Bill, and by the expenditure prescribed in it. I well understand the problems relating to the use of Epping forest. I have visited the forest many times and enjoyed it very much, although I once had to swim in a pond there in mid-winter because my dog had been caught in a branch and was in danger of drowning. The forest is a beautiful place and, indeed, very overused.
The Bill states that the conservators will try to regulate usage by horse riders—I understand that, because of the damage that they do to the tracks in the forest—and proposes the introduction of charges, provided—I quote from clause 10(1)—
"that taking one year with another the aggregate amount raised by such charges shall not exceed the reasonable costs incurred by the Conservators in undertaking the activities to which charges made under this subsection relate."
I am concerned about that, and about subsection (2), which states:
"Charges made under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances or different areas of Epping Forest."
An important principle is at stake here. First, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, the forest was rescued from the enclosures for all time for the public good—for the free usage and enjoyment of ordinary people. If a charging system is introduced, we shall have departed from that important principle. What worries me even more, however, is that the wording is something of an open book. It says that the charges should amount to no more than the "reasonable costs" that the conservators may incur in the necessary works, but there appears to be very little definition of what "reasonable costs" might be. If those costs become very high and the entire cost of the works is passed on to the users—in this case, horse riders
120
—it may deter poorer children from schools rather than riding schools, and handicapped children, from riding and enjoying the forest in other similar ways. The Bill appears to be departing from a very important principle.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the introduction of charges in Epping forest. Does he not accept that riding horses is the only activity that is carried on commercially on Epping forest land that is not charged for and that very many other activities on Epping forest land attract charges?
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In a sense, it emphasises rather than takes away from my point. When children in areas such as mine, which is not a particularly wealthy area, want to take up horse riding—there is no reason why they should not, because horse riding should be available for all—they find that to have to pay for riding on open lands on top of the cost of the tack and the training makes it prohibitive.
Mr. Norris: I follow the hon. Gentleman's point, which is perfectly fair. However, he will accept, I am sure, that the system that the conservators have said that they wish to adopt in respect of charging suggests that a child in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would simply hire a horse for the afternoon, in which case the child ought to be charged only for that part of the day cost of the annual allowance, which would be 10p or 12p.
Mr. Corbyn: That is fair enough, and the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it is understandable, but the wording in clause 10 is fairly open ended and does not provide the kind of guarantees that hon. Members whose constituencies border Epping forest want. When the Bill is considered in Committee I hope that the clause will be amended and tightened and that these costs will be reconsidered. We want to protect the forest and regulate its use as far as that is necessary, but we must not discriminate against the very people who use the forest. Hon. Members who represent and live in the area are fortunate to have the forest on their doorstep, but it is also on the doorstep of many other people in north London. We enjoy going there. Epping forest once extended as far as Queen's wood in Hornsey and Highgate wood and to parts of Hampstead heath. Queen's wood and Highgate wood are still virgin forest, as is Epping forest. That, in an urban area, is remarkable.
I tabled an instruction on clause 11, but it was not selected. Clause 11 provides for a change in the length of the fencing of the Blackfriars underpass footpath from 1,200 ft to 1,282 ft. That extension of the fencing will prevent the footpath from being used. The City of London (Various Powers) Act 1977 authorised the construction of the Blackfriars underpass. The change would make the area very pedestrian unfriendly. Many people who travel by train to Blackfriars go to the Mermaid theatre in the evenings. The area between the City of London and the City of Westminster is becoming a motorway. We should not encourage high-speed traffic if there is little pedestrian access to neighbouring buildings. An urban motorway in that area should not be allowed to develop.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman could not be here earlier, when I went to some trouble to explain the clause. I made the point that there is no access to buildings from this so-called pedestrian way, which is highly dangerous, and that there are plenty of other ways of reaching the buildings to which the hon.

121
Gentleman refers without going along a very narrow pedestrian path that would cause danger to both pedestrians and road users.
Mr. Corbyn: I understand that. I repeat my apology for not being able to be here earlier. I have tried to walk along that piece of pavement and I concede that it is very dangerous. My general point is that I do not like the idea of separating roads and pedestrians in that type of urban area because it creates traffic problems in the future.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Most of us would like traffic to be buried wherever possible. That is where the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I agree. It is probably best to give the whole road space to pedestrians. It may be possible to reverse the hierarchy in that way in areas that do not have to carry through traffic. One of the best courses is to do what the City has done, which is take traffic away from people and give people back the space.
Mr. Corbyn: That would be nice, but I can think of many parts of the City that are choked all day with unpleasant exhaust fumes. Some of the beauties of the City, such as the areas around the Guildhall, St. Paul's and the Monument, are unpleasant to visit. I often take visitors there, but they frequently want to leave quickly because it is not pleasant to visit such an environment. I hope that we can get more traffic out of the City rather than attract more into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has also tabled an instruction, but he is unwell. He telephoned me this morning. His instruction, which was tabled on Friday, concerns the draft strategic guidance for London, which has been issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to the money resolution. He must address his comments to that resolution.
Mr. Corbyn: I understand the need to speak to the costs of the Bill. My hon. Friend wants to include in the Bill a provision which would lead to expenditure on the protection of ancient monuments in the City. My hon. Friend is anxious about the palace of the Roman governor of London, Julius Agricola. I hope that there will be an opportunity to raise such issues in Committee. What has happened today at the Rose theatre in Southwark shows that there is enormous feeling among ordinary people that our history should be preserved and not have speculative office blocks built on it.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that there is strong feeling among the people of Walthamstow that the Bill should be passed so that the forest floor in that part of Epping forest which is in my constituency is no longer cut up by riders?
Mr. Corbyn: I am not sure that there is unanimity in the borough of Waltham Forest on that matter.
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 19.

Division No. 200]

[11.8 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Amess, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Amos, Alan

Jessel, Toby

Arbuthnot, James

Knapman, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lilley, Peter

Atkinson, David

Livsey, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lord, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Maclean, David

Bendall, Vivian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Mans, Keith

Boswell, Tim

Marlow, Tony

Bottomley, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Miller, Sir Hal

Bowis, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Brazier, Julian

Neale, Gerrard

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Norris, Steve

Buck, Sir Antony

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Burns, Simon

Paice, James

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Rathbone, Tim

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Carrington, Matthew

Sayeed, Jonathan

Chapman, Sydney

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Speller, Tony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Stern, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Stevens, Lewis

Cope, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Couchman, James

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Summerson, Hugo

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

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Day, Stephen

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Dorrell, Stephen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Durant, Tony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Dykes, Hugh

Thorne, Neil

Emery, Sir Peter

Thurnham, Peter

Fallon, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Wallace, James

Fishburn, John Dudley

Waller, Gary

Forman, Nigel

Wells, Bowen

Forth, Eric

Wheeler, John

Freeman, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Gale, Roger

Winterton, Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Wood, Timothy

Gill, Christopher

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hague, William

Mr. David Lightbown and

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Harris, David

NOES

Allen, Graham

Meale, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Michael, Alun

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Pike, Peter L.

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Derek

Ruddock, Joan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

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

Haynes, Frank

McAvoy, Thomas

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

McLeish, Henry

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, It is expedient to authorize the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain land in Epping Forest temporarily occupied by him by virtue of that Act for road purposes;

123

(b) in reimbursing the Conservators of Epping Forest for such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of that Act as is attributable to its provisions relating to the grant to him for road purposes of rights over and interests in land; and

(c) in indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by them which are caused by or arise out of the grant of those rights and interests and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators, their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.

Taxation of Savings
11.19 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4763/89 relating to taxation of savings; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. The document that we are debating, No. 4763/89, is printed partly in the French language and some of the information contained in it is not in the English part of the document. It provides additional information that is not available in the English part. Is it in order for us to debate a document that is printed partly in a language other than English?
My second point of order relates to Standing Order No. 109, which states:
"No document received by the clerk of a select committee shall be … altered without the knowledge and approval of the committee."
My understanding is that the document considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation was wholly in the English language, whereas the one that we have obtained from the Table Office is partly in French. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance, because my understanding is that when the matter was raised previously, in the early 1900s when another language was used in the House, it was declared to be out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The matter is in order. The Standing Order which the hon. Gentleman has quoted does not apply to the House, but the points that he is making are perfectly legitimate ones to make in the debate.
Mr. Tony Marlow;: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, I shall take the point of order, but I remind the House that the debate has started and that we are cutting into debating time.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the ruling that you have just given? It is not likely to happen, but were it to happen that the document upon which the debate was based was totally in a foreign language, are you saying that the debate would go ahead?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am saying that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to cover this matter in relation to debates in the House. But these are perfectly legitimate matters to raise during the debate.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As a historian, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that in the past hon. Members have been ruled out of order for making parts of their speeches in a foreign language—especially Mr. David Lloyd George, then a rising Welsh Back-Bench Member—
Mr. Alex Carlile: It was not a foreign language.
Mr. Aitken: He was ruled out of order for using a tongue other than the English language. Since your

125
predecessors have ruled out of order the speaking of Welsh, why is it in order for someone to refer to these documents in French?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not dealing with speeches in the House. I was asked about the language of documents, and I made clear what the Standing Orders cover. But I repeat that these are legitimate points to make in the debate.
Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I cannot see that any points of order arise.
Mr. Lilley: It may be for the convenience of the House if I address it in English—
Mr. Marlow: If it is not proper to use a foreign language in debate, is it possible, is it proper and is it in order to read extracts from this document, which happens to be in a foreign language, during the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is hypothetical.
I should say that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Mr. Lilley: I shall speak in English, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government believe that the Commission's proposals for a compulsory withholding tax Community-wide are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging. The origin of the proposals lies in the capital liberalisation directive which required the Commission to support proposals on reducing tax evasion and required the Council to take a position by the end of June. But it did not require the Council to accept those proposals. It specified clearly that acceptance would require unanimity, and the implementation of the remainder of the capital liberalisation directive, with the eventual abolition of exchange controls throughout the Community, in no way depends upon agreement on those proposals.
There are plenty of arguments of principle—no doubt we shall hear them this evening—and plenty of reasons why the House may not wish to give up its sovereign right to impose taxes or not to impose them. In any case, the practical arguments against the proposal are overwhelming. In the first place, it is clearly unnecessary. We can easily understand the fears of countries that are about to abolish exchange controls that abolition may give rise to an outflow of funds to evade taxation. Those fears were expressed in the House when exchange controls were abolished in 1979, but our experience provides no evidence to suggest that the abolition of exchange controls is likely to be followed by a significant outflow of tax avoidance funds.
Germany, which has had no exchange controls for a long time, had no measurable problem of outflow of tax avoidance funds until it imposed a withholding tax. That shows that it is not capital liberalisation but the very imposition of a withholding tax that leads to an outflow of tax avoidance funds.
Moreover, those who are prepared to evade their countries' tax laws are likely to have been prepared also to avoid their exchange controls before they were abolished.
126
In addition, a network of double taxation agreements between countries, including the United Kingdom, largely meets the requirements of minimising tax evasion.
We believe that the proposal will also be ineffective. It contains several loopholes that will enable people to avoid paying tax. It rightly specifies that there will be no withholding tax on Eurobonds and contains a rather imprecise proposal that there should be no tax on interest to commercial companies. There is also the possibility of not having a withholding tax on small savings.
More important than that, it is quite clear that those who wish to avoid paying the withholding tax can simply put their money outside the Community altogether. New York, for example, has no withholding tax and in Switzerland fiduciary deposits attract no withholding tax. No doubt if the Community went ahead and imposed such a tax, tax havens would spring up around it like mushrooms over night. They would be the welcoming recipients of funds from the Community.
The ambition is expressed in the directive not only that the Community should establish a withholding tax but that agreement should be reached that all other countries should do likewise. That is wholly unrealistic and represents a tacit admission that, without such agreement globally, the proposal would merely lead to funds being diverted outside the Community.
It is a damaging proposal, not just because it would lead to an outflow of tax avoidance funds but because it would lead to an outflow of perfectly legitimate funds and, indeed, to the non-retention of funds from abroad because, although they are not subject to withholding tax in principle, many foreign holders of funds will not wish to go through the process of identifying themselves, reclaiming tax and going through the bureaucratic procedures necessary once a withholding tax exists.
Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend accept that the secret reason, the secret agenda, the real reason for this proposal for a withholding tax is not because the European Commission thinks that a withholding tax is a good, natural, decent or reasonable tax? It is a stalking horse. What they want is other European sources of finance. They are trying this one out now, and if they do not get this one, they will try another one.
Mr. Lilley: That may be one of the motives. Ours is not to speculate about the motives but merely to determine whether it is a desirable proposal. I believe it to be a damaging proposal.
The other problem—apart from the outflow of perfectly legitimate funds and the outflow of funds from abroad—is that such a tax would drive financial markets abroad. That is a more serious problem from Britain's point of view. A withholding tax is incompatible with the operation of many commercial wholesale financial markets. Deposits change hands frequently and it is virtually impossible to keep track of the identity of those who own them, to whom the interest is payable and whether they are residents and therefore liable to withholding tax or non-residents and therefore not liable.
Where a discount is payable that diminishes over time, which many financial instruments enjoy, it is difficult to tell who the declining discount is attributable to and who not and therefore how a withholding tax could be levied on it. There are numerous other difficulties in the operation of the wholesale markets that are incompatible with the

127
workings of such a tax and that is extremely important to the United Kingdom as it has the largest and most successful wholesale markets.
The German experience demonstrates emphatically that the views expressed are not alarmist but practical and empirically verified. Preceding the imposition of the withholding tax in Germany in January and during the subsequent four months there has been a massive outflow of capital. As a result, an interest rate differential has been established whereby it is more expensive to borrow deutschmarks in Germany than it is outside that country. Germany has therefore done itself the disservice of raising the cost of borrowing to its Government, industry and people relative to those abroad who borrow deutschmarks. The German banks put the cost of imposing the withholding tax at about $420 million. Small wonder that the Germans have decided to abandon the experiment of withholding tax and, on Friday, came out against the idea of a European-wide withholding tax.
Opposition to the proposal is widespread not just in this country from the British Bankers Association and Building Societies Association, but from individual institutions in the financial market. The European equivalent to the Confederation of British Industry has said that it thinks that the withholding tax
"could turn out to be more harmful than the illness it was meant to cure"
and that it would inevitably lead to a flight of capital from Europe.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend explain how the withholding tax would work in relation to British building societies that have special interest rate arrangements?
Mr. Lilley: At present we have a composite rate tax on deposits in building societies and banks up to £50,000. Over and above that, although the holder of such deposits is liable to tax, we do not withhold it at source as such large sums are often mobile, involved in rapid financial transactions and therefore difficult to follow. The liability remains, but no CRT above that £50,000.
Mr. Taylor: How would the withholding tax work on British building society accounts?
Mr. Lilley: If the proposal were implemented, we would be required to impose a withholding tax, not just the present one of 21 per cent. up to £50,000, but at least 15 per cent. on all deposits, including those above £50,000.
The United Kingdom has argued consistently, on the basis of its experience, against the proposal and our arguments have been making increasing headway. We have been joined by Luxembourg and the Netherlands in opposing the directive and now most emphatically by the Germans. Criticisms have also been expressed by Greece and Portugal, which are particularly worried about its impact on remittances from emigrants, and the Irish Republic is also critical.
The German decision to suspend its own withholding tax from July of this year effectively delivers the coup de grace—if I am allowed to use that phrase in this debate —to the proposal. Those who persist in pursuing the idea are rather like the German philosopher Hegal who, on being told that his scientific theories had been refuted by the facts, declared:
"So much the worse for the facts".
128
The German experience with its withholding tax has proved emphatic and final.
Fortunately, the Commissioner responsible for taxation, Madame Scrivener, has declared herself to be pragmatic and flexible and I believe that she will not long detain the Commission or deflect the Community with the proposal from the more important objective of completing the single market. I hope that the House will send a clear message to the Community that it does not believe that the Community's interests will be best served by a withholding tax of this kind.
11.35 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: We are, effectively, discussing two documents. The first deals with the proposals for withholding tax and the second with the proposals for co-operation to combat tax evasion on investment income.
The Opposition approach the document on withholding tax with considerable scepticism and caution. We share many of the Government's concerns about the proposal. We take a more sympathetic view of the second document than do the Government.
The Commission's aims for withholding tax initially sound laudable. First, it aims to ensure that the differences between the tax regimes of member countries do not distort and impede the process of capital movement liberalisation. Secondly, it aims to promote genuine, cross-frontier competition in financial services. With the approach of 1992 and the prospect that Britain's financial services industry could take a substantial share of European activity in the financial services sector, genuine cross-frontier competition is important.
Thirdly, the Commission says that it wishes to acknowledge that complete harmonisation is
"neither necessary nor desirable at the moment."
Finally, it says that it wishes to maintain the internal balance of the systems for the taxation of income in the different member states. I shall return to that point, because it is crucial to the argument about our response to the document. The Opposition fear that the proposed directive does not secure the aims that the Commission says that it will.
Our concerns are fivefold. First, we believe that the internal balance of systems of taxation is extremely important. The directive might provide the possibility of upsetting the internal balance which this Parliament might seek through the British taxation systems. We have criticisms of the present internal balance struck by the Government. We were discussing that precise point only last Wednesday in relation to the extremely generous provision which the Government are currently making for the tax provisions on equity saving, as opposed to other forms of saving. However, it is important for us to preserve the possibility of striking a balance which might be different from that sought by the commission.
We do not have any quarrel with the principle of a witholding tax, but we might, as a country, wish to consider the establishment of thresholds that might fall foul of such a directive. We might wish to seek differences between different forms of saving and their tax treatment. In addition, we might wish to use the tax system to promote industrial investment by means of individual contribution. All those possibilities might, in some circumstances, be ruled out by the provisions of the

129
proposed directive. We believe that it is important, within the internal balance of our taxation system, to preserve considerable flexibility.
Secondly, we fear that the loopholes that the Commission suggests—the Economic Secretary spelt this out—provide the opportunity for a coach and horses to be driven through its own proposals. Such loopholes include the exemptions for particularly designated savings income, for the vague attribution of industrial or commercial income, for residents of third countries and for international loans, such as Eurobonds. Those loopholes provide a fundamental insecurity to the system which they seek to establish.
Thirdly, we must recognise that the option would remain open to Governments —even if such a directive were brought in—to use interest rates as a financial market booster if flexibility in fiscal measures were removed. The temptation to switch from the use of fiscal policy to monetary policy would become greater under such a system.
Fourthly, we are worried that it appears from the documents that, in one respect, the Commission wishes to treat capital gains in some respects as pure investment income. There is a strong argument for treating income from whatever source in similar fiscal ways. There is a bias in the United Kingdom fiscal system against earned income; it should be rectified, but we are not sure whether article 2(2) of the directive is the right way in which to go about that.
Finally, we are concerned that there are practical difficulties for the wholesale markets, as the Economic Secretary outlined, and that the directive might well impede the efficient operation of those markets.
We have a number of serious doubts about the contents of the proposed directive on withholding tax. Accordingly, we shall not seek to divide the House, because we share the Government's doubts on the issue. However, the Government are being too alarmist in believing that such a proposal will have an adverse impact on the City and financial institutions. One is tempted to ask whether they can stand up to a world of competition on equal terms. If they can, they should not be worried by provisions such as these. Nevertheless, our doubts require careful discussion with other member states.
We take a rather more robust view of the second document, on co-operation to combat tax evasion, than the Government. We do not believe there is an absolute necessity to link to the proposals. The second document could he implemented, with modifications, before the first. It seems entirely sensible that member states should remove administrative barriers to the exchange of information in order to assist the process of identifying and clamping down on tax evasion. The document goes out of its way to stress that there should be no attempt to breach doctrines of bank confidentiality, but within administrative practices it identifies scope for greater co-operation. The Government should consider in their response not only the administrative burdens that that might place on the Inland Revenue but the possibility of advantage to our Inland Revenue from information gathered by other member countries' revenue departments.
The problem with the Government's response becomes clearest in their explanatory memorandum:
130
"The Government is concerned that … the use of tax investigation resources may be dictated by overseas priorities to the detriment of domestic priorities."
What domestic priorities? It is quite clear that our Government have devoted far too little attention to cutting out tax evasion. They have not given sufficient resources to the Inland Revenue to enable it to tackle tax fraud. Only last Wednesday, during the debate on the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) pointed to the considerable manpower losses in the Inland Revenue that the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has identified.
A total of 260 tax inspectors left the Inland Revenue in 1987–88 and 170 left in the previous year. Let us be quite clear. The average yield of a grade 7 tax inspector undertaking accounts work in one of the specialised tax offices dealing with, in this instance, large commercial firms was almost £1 million per head in 1987–88. Loss of manpower within the Inland Revenue is serious and we know that even before the relative decline in Inland Revenue staffing, the Revenue was understaffed.
The Government have been dragging their feet on the need to crack down harder on tax evasion. That is in sharp contrast to the approach by the Department of Social Security. It is a classic case of one law rigorously pursued for the poor and another languorously applied to the rich. The directive would help in a small way to improve our performance and the performance of other member states in tackling tax evasion. We urge the Government to support it rather more enthusiastically than they appear to be doing.
11.46 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: We should welcome straightaway this very tough motion submitted by the Government because it appears to indicate a change of attitude. I welcome that, and I think that all those who take a genuine interest in the European Community will also welcome it. In the motion the Government condemn as unnecessary, ineffective and damaging a proposal which, I understand, all the Ministers in the Council agreed to ask for only 12 months ago.
We have got a major change. Twelve months ago we wanted a proposal to be considered and now we quite rightly say that it is ineffective, damaging and nonsense. It would be a mistake not to welcome what is obviously a clear change of heart by the Government on the presentation of this mass of crazy Eurodocuments which push forward bureaucracy, harmonisation and Socialism and, unfortunately, force them on the people of Britain.
Secondly, it is utterly and completely ludicrous that an important proposal by the Common Market for new taxes on savings should be discussed at a quarter to 12 at night. In a rather controversial speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said he thought that there was an attempt to mislead the public on the nature of the European Community. I can understand how he and others might feel, because the people of Britain are not being told what is going on in the European Community. I wish to goodness that they were and that my right hon. Friends the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Prime Minister and everyone else would tell people what was happening in the European Community and how it affected them.
At a quarter to 12 at night we are debating this important new measure. Tomorrow after 10 o'clock there

131
will be another important new measure and there will be another on Wednesday after 10 o'clock. The people of Britain will hear little, if anything, about what is being proposed and what, in some cases, is being forced on them, whether they like it or not, by the majority vote of the European Community.
Mr. Marlow: And in French.
Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, we now have these things partly in French.
The Minister has rightly said that he thinks he can stop this. Mr. Jacques Delors has correctly said that, as a result of the Single European Act, about 80 per cent. of a significant part of the laws that we normally approve will effectively be taken over by the Common Market and that the majority of member states will decide on laws to be applied in Britain, whether or not the Parliament or the Government like them.
The Minister has said that this is one of the 20 per cent. on which we have unanimity, but we had this before. The Speaker's Counsel told us that there was unanimity on the summer time order, and the Common Market could not force it on us. There was no doubt about it. However, then the Commissioner of the Common Market presented a proposal, under article 100A, which we thought was unlawful and that our legal advice agreed was unlawful, but it still happened. The only way to stop that is to get the 12 member states to agree that the EEC Commission is wrong.
I am delighted with the stand that the Minister has taken on this most dreadful proposal for nonsensical bureaucracy, coming from the EEC. However, is he confident that there is no way that the EEC could ask for a majority vote? We have to think of the proposals of the court. As my hon. Friend is aware, to our cost, we have had the court forcing taxes on Britain. I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister is against the Common Market imposing new taxes on us, but it has been doing it through the court. For example, the new tax of VAT on spectacles and hearing aids was forced on Britain not because our Government or Parliament wanted it but because the court told us that we had to do it. In the same way, the proposals to impose taxes on industry and commerce, on electricity, gas, water and sewage and all new industrial buildings were carried through not because our Government or Parliament wanted to do it, but because the court told us to do it. I should like the Minister to make it abundantly clear—we know that he takes a deep interest in these matters—that there is no way in which this ludicrous arrangement can be forced on Britain if we do not want it.
Will my hon. Friend say something about what is planned, in case it is forced on us? I can remember sitting here listening to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), then a Treasury Minister, telling us that the Common Market would never abolish our zero rates of VAT, but he was wrong, not because he cheated or lied but because the Common Market moves all the time and takes more and more power.
The Minister will be aware of what "interest" is, as defined by this proposal. It is:
"premium, prizes or the difference between issue and redemption prices on discount instruments."
Does that mean that prizes from premium bonds will be affected by this income tax? Does it mean that when people
132
buy Government bonds at a discount, someone will work out the difference between what they buy them at and what the repayment prices are, and they will have to pay their Eurotax on this? What does it mean by "prizes"? It says here that prizes will be subject to the withholding tax. Are we talking about raffles? What are we talking about? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear idea about what we can look forward to.
The same is true of building societies. In view of what the Minister said, I am sure that many of the honest people in Britain who have saved for their retirement and have money in a building society will be worried about what the Common Market is planning to do. My hon. Friend should also give us some idea about what will happen with the overseas territories of the EEC.
People should know about these things but they do not. These orders are taken at midnight and no one knows about them. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is nodding his head. He knows about it. We are having debates about how we will not allow people to come here from Hong Kong, but only yesterday we heard that people from the Portuguese colony next door to Hong Kong will be able to come here without any restriction.
Mr. A. J. Keith: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: That is the result of Common Market legislation, which the Liberals always supported enthusiastically. I am not blaming them for it because lots of people are responsible for this. Many such things are happening, and people do not know about them.
I am delighted that the Government are getting tough with the Common Market. We have had crazy proposals. It has let us down on every pledge. I remember all the talk about controlling spending, an issue on which the Prime Minister fought so hard. The Court of Auditors report spoke of the promised 3 per cent. increase in spending, which became a 20 per cent. increase because of fiddles.
I remember all the talk about the reforms of the CAP, but they never happened, and they never will happen, because we cannot reform the CAP. The Government seem to be waking up to the nonsense, the bureaucracy, the waste and the Socialism of Europe, and we should all say hooray. I am sure that I carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me when I say that people have got to be told. We know that the Prime Minister will be tough on the Common Market, but the people must be told what the issues are.
The people will want to know whether the balance of trade with the Common Market is dreadful, good or horrifying. Most people do not know. People will want to know how much money we are paying into the Common Market. They would like to know now, but they do not. That is because no one is telling them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, an excellent Treasury Minister, will say, "Yes, we shall try to do all in our power to reject this Common Market rubbish. Yes, we shall tell the people of Britain what is happening." If that happens, we shall hear no more complaints from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup or from anyone else. If the people are told what is happening, they will back the Government 100 per cent. in trying to stop this flood of bureaucratic, costly and Socialist Eurononsense.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) warned us of bogeymen hidden in corners and even claimed a convert to his view in the Prime Minister's latest stance on Europe. I do not think that she Is a total convert. As I understand it, she still believes that we should be a member of the Community. However, she seems to be having difficulty accepting some of the implications of that. It is, of course, no part of accepting the implications to assume that every proposal that emanates from the Commission is correct.
The proposal that is before us is directed to a problem that we would be foolish to deny exists. There could be substantial capital flows arising out of differential tax regimes in different countries and substantial tax evasion. However, having referred to that problem, the Commission advances a procedure are that is unlikely to solve it. Indeed, in some respects it may make it significantly worse. These seem to be good reasons for sending the Commission back to the drawing board and saying, "You will not solve the problem this way so you had better look for another way of tackling it."
I am saying that the problem will not be solved for several reasons. First, the Commission's proposal is likely to generate capital movements all of its own. As the Minister said, the Germans found out about that. Such movements will probably be outside the Community. There are substantial loopholes within the proposal by its very nature. The Eurobond is the most significant example of that. Another example is the proposal in paragraph 18(iii) that
"Member States would be free not to apply the withholding tax to tax-exempt savings income (savings books and other common forms of saving)".
These savings will differ in about every country in the Community. It would be open to someone in Britain to take out every sort of tax-free saving in every different European country. In many instances different proposals would be used to encourage saving in different member countries. Someone who took that course would not have to pay any withholding tax on these savings. By this process he could accumulate a pretty substantial slice of income that would not attract the withholding tax. There is a series of loopholes of that sort.
There would be the enormous complexity of the clearing house mechanism, which would collect the tax at the withholding tax level at, say, 15 per cent. The member Governments would still have to maintain the differential between the withholding tax arid the level at which they choose to tax savings. There is an obvious differential in Britain between the withholding tax level and the current composite rate that applies to bank and building society accounts.
It could be argued that the Commission's proposal represents a further limitation on that sometimes forgotten group, the non-taxpayers, whose members are receiving rather a raw deal at present. It is difficult now for an elderly non-taxpayer with age relief to find anywhere to put his savings where income tax is not deducted at source. National Savings represent an exception, but they would probably be exempt under the Commission's proposal. The offshore account is a reasonable proposition for someone who would not be liable for tax and who does not want to go through the process of having to reclaim tax, still less to have to pay tax that he cannot reclaim.
134
What would be the position, under the proposals that we are considering, of offshore accounts in the Isle of Man or the Channel isles? Both the Isle of Man and the Channel isles have association with the Community. What would be the position of offshore accounts in those territories under the withholding tax proposal?
The Commission's proposal is not a sensible way of tackling the problem. Therefore, we must consider the options. The alternative to avoiding substantial tax evasion is more information sharing between member states. To that extent, the mutual assistance directive seems to me more welcome than the Government suggest. Their tortuous argument that tax inspectors will suddenly be preoccupied with worrying about tax avoiders from Germany rather than with those in Britain is extraordinary. Mutual assistance is a reciprocal arrangement in which part of the burden of dealing with each other's tax evasion problems is shared. There is an element of that in all the bilateral tax arrangements we make with numerous other countries.
I am intrigued to know why the Government have, as I understand it, taken a hostile view of the joint OECD and Council of Europe proposal, which embraces a much greater number of countries, on the sharing of information. If information sharing is to be as effective as possible, it might best be backed by compulsory disclosure and total reporting of a kind that a number of member countries strongly resist because of their traditions of bank secrecy. Sometimes I think that right hon. and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Southend, East should remember that other member states also hold strong views on practices that they do not think the Community as a whole should adopt. Looked at from the British perspective, it seems odd to us that the pattern should be preserved in some member states in which substantial tax evasion can occur with the knowledge of the banks, and without there being any communication between them and those countries' tax authorities.
The proposed information sharing mechanisms offer a reasonable way of tackling tax evasion without introducing other, even more serious, distortions of capital flows than the measure now before the House is designed to solve. I am more hostile to the withholding tax proposal than even the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), when he spoke on behalf of the Labour party in the new, responsible Euro-Labour party mould with a very wise and statesmanlike speech.
I do not merely have reservations about the EC's proposal but I think that it is plain wrong. The Government should resist it, but take a more co-operative approach to information sharing and to other measures for dealing with tax evasion, to avoid trapping Britain in a cumbersome mechanism that will create more problems than it solves.
12.1 am
Mr. Tony Marlow: Over the years the Government and I have had our differences on European issues, but may I say how much I congratulate the Government on the motion that they have put before the House. It is succinct, it is to the point, it is the model of a motion.
I will endeavour to put this particular measure in the context of the debate which, if it has not started in the United Kingdom, jolly well should be started with the

135
European elections coming up. Yesterday, there was an elderly gentleman on our television screens—an elderly gentleman suffering from delusions of grandeur. It was of course my right hon. Friend "L'Europe c'est moi." He told us—whether we want it or not, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not—that we in this country are now members of, part of, subsumed within, the united states of Europe.
Even allowing for the source of that advice, that comment showed a breathtaking arrogance. It was justified on the basis that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), along with a gentleman named Goebbels and 10 other individuals, signed this, in many ways offensive, piece of paper—the Single European Act. It is that document that has spawned the measure we are talking about this evening.
The one saving grace of this document is that it requires that this measure should be adopted not by majority vote, as so many of our laws are adopted, but by unanimity. Yesterday we were told that the treaty is important. But this House is important and the British people are important. This House and the British people have never agreed to be part of, to be subsumed in, a united states of Europe. Elderly gentlemen sometimes make mistakes. They get out of touch. In this case, this particular right hon. elderly gentleman is totally in touch. That is a rugby expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, meaning that he is off the field of play.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was somewhat more tactful. He said, "You cannot actually choose the bits of Europe that you like: you cannot have your Europe a la carte." Why not? If it is in our interests and we have the power to secure those bits that will benefit our country and the British people, why not have them? Certain issues in Europe are decided by unanimity. If a proposal is put forward that requires unanimity—such as the one that we are discussing—and we do want it, why not kick it out? If a proposal comes up for majority voting and we are in favour of it—if by manipulation, manoeuvre and argument we can get it through, and if it is in Britain's interests—why not have it?
There are good parts to Europe, and there are bad parts. The good parts include the single European market, of which I am sure that most hon. Members are in favour: free trade in goods and general benefits all round. Another good part is political co-operation. Any part in which we have interests in common and can work together sensibly is good. But this measure, this withholding tax, is one of the bad parts of Europe. There are other bad parts which should be seen alongside it. There is the European social charter, which would place massive burdens on our industry and on European industry. It would return to the industry of this country many of the disastrous apparatus that the Government have taken such a long time to get rid of.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley says that we cannot have Europe a la carte. I think that he ought to answer the question whether he wants this measure—the withholding tax—and whether he wants the European social charter. If that is what he wants, let him explain the benefits to us.
Another bad European measure has been put before the House, similar in badness to the measure that we are
136
debating tonight. We debated the subject of smoking in public places. The European Commission, God bless us, felt that it was time that Europe took competence over such an issue. I suppose that the theory is that if one sits in a public lavatory chain-smoking in Dover, it will pollute the pastures of the French peasants in the Pas de Calais. Such little things please such little minds in the European Commission, and this is one such issue.
Why the withholding tax? We have no need for a withholding tax. What is the motive for the proposal? Why harmonise?
Mr. Ian Taylor: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying about withholding tax, with which most hon. Members appear to disagree. Will he recognise, however, that the motivation for the proposal was the much greater benefit to the Community provided by the agreement of the French and the Italians—against their better judgment—to remove their own obstacles to capital movements? In other words, they were going to abolish exchange controls, an event which I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome.
Mr. Marlow: I think that we all welcome that event, but as I read and understand the treaty, it was going to happen anyway. Everyone was committed to the removal of constraints on capital flows. There was no general commitment in favour of the withholding tax, however. If we can get the good, why put up with the bad as well?
Why, then, did the Commission want to introduce the withholding tax? Why did it want to harmonise taxes? A harmonised tax is a European tax. Any tax that is harmonised is potentially a source of European finance. What we must decide is whether we believe that taxes should be raised by Europe or within the nation states of Europe. I believe, and I think that the House believes, that we should raise our own taxes and spend our own money.
Why? First, we have had very bad experiences of money that is raised for Europe and spent by Europe. The main area of European expenditure is, of course, the common agricultural policy, and day after day we read stories of how it is riddled with fraud and the money is wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has told the House on many occasions that half the money spent on the common agricultural policy is spent on the storage and destruction of food. European policies are extravagant and wasteful and they spawn a great deal of criminal activity. That is another reason why we should not have a withholding tax.
The vast majority of the British people and the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe that as we are in Europe we should stay in Europe, work with Europe and make Europe work. But that is a Europe of nation states, not a united states of Europe. A small minority is in favour of a united states of Europe, but if we start having more European levels of taxation we shall have more European levels of expenditure and we shall also move across the threshold from a Europe of nation states to a centralised, bureaucratic, Socialist united states of Europe. Let me explain why.
If Europe gets involved in personal levels of taxation the—level of tax that is charged to entrepreneurs—and if Europe gets involved in corporate taxation and controls the taxes that are paid by industry and commerce, there will be a tendency for them to be centralised at a high level in order to provide resources and scope for more

137
European policies. If the national Governments and national Parliaments of the nation states of Europe maintain the right, the power and the ability to raise their own taxes, they will tend to compete one with another. Instead of having high levels of European tax there will be low levels of national tax. If there are low levels of national tax, there is only one way that we can succeed. That is through growth—through giving scope to business, enterprise, commerce and industry.
If we want to have a prosperous Europe in the 21st century, national Governments and national Parliaments must decide what taxes are to be levied and how they are to be levied. If we move in the direction of centralised European taxation—of this withholding tax—or of any other areas of European taxation, we shall move towards the nightmare that has so often and so accurately been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East of a centralised, bureaucratic, Socialist united states of Europe.
12.12 am
Mr. Frank Haynes: I have listened very carefully to what has been said, including what was said by the Minister and the hon. Members for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). It is the same old story. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, here we go again, late at night, and it will happen again and again. It is high time we put a stop to it. The House should grab this one by the hair and do something about it. Ministers do not appear to be prepared to do anything about it. The Economic Secretary says that he disagrees with everything that his hon. Friends say. If there were to be a Division on the amendment, he would vote against it. I agree with the amendment, but it has not been selected. Had it been selected, the -Minister would have voted against it.
The Minister is not always here when we discuss EEC matters. He is tucked up in bed, nice and warm. But some of us are here until the early hours of the morning discussing EEC matters. [Interruption.] The Government Whip is here, too. It is not often that I agree with him, but I agree with him tonight. He is here, too, until the early hours of the morning, along with some of my right and hon. Friends.
We are sick to death about what is going on. It is high time that it stopped. The Minister tells us what to do about taxation, but we can deal with that problem ourselves without the EEC telling us what to do. What help does the EEC intend to give us to carry out that job? The ordinary working class folk of this nation pay their tax automatically; it is deducted at source. That applies to Members of Parliament, too. His pay is taxed before he gets it. [Interruption.] I did not intervene when the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was on his feet. He is a pro-European. He agrees with everything that they say, coming across that flipping water. We have had enough of it.
Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Haynes: No, but I will in a minute. Dr. Death, who usually sits a bit further down this Bench, is always pushing about the European monetary system. A lot of us do not agree with it. He can keep pressing if he likes—he is one of a minute group. There are only three of them here.
138
A lot of hon. Members disagree with some of what is being proposed. I often disagree with what the Minister says.
Mr. Beith: I am having difficulty following the current Labour party stance. The hon. Gentleman is a Labour Whip. I listened to his Front Bench spokesman say that the directive on sharing information is welcome and that the Labour party understands the motivation behind the other, although it has some reservations about it. That does not seem to add up to the view that the hon. Gentleman is presenting—that Europe should not be considering these issues arid that we can manage by ourselves. [Interruption.]
Mr. Haynes: Now we have Pembroke yawping. He disagrees with everything that Opposition Members say. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will not get me to fall out with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. That one was tried when we debated smoking, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said. A Conservative Member tried to get me to criticise one of my lovely hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Once again, the Minister was tucked up all nice and warm between the sheets while we were here working.
I am expressing my own point of view here. I am entitled to do that if I want to. I represent an electorate of 66,000 and a population of more than 100,000. I am speaking on their behalf. I know what they say to me about taxation and the unfairness of it. We do not need Europe to tell us how to deal with our taxation. We can do it ourselves. The Minister is nodding. Does he agree that the House should be allowed to determine the destiny of its people and not be told what to do from across the water? Will the Minister get up and say so? He will not, because he agrees with many of the instructions that come from across the water. That is his problem. He will not get up and be honest like me and say, "I do not accept those things which they tell us we should be doing. We determine it. We decide." [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) may laugh, but his grandfather would not have laughed. I am talking about a serious matter. He knows who I am talking about. The fellow it am talking about was a real Socialist.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Not like Kinnock!
Mr. Haynes: We are all Socialists over here—except this lot behind me. I am expressing my view. It may be a bit different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is on the Front Bench. He is speaking on behalf of the party. I thought that we could express our views in this place. I usually do. I did this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Energy. I told him where to get off. That was necessary. Once again, I was representing my constituents.
I shall be here only another three years if the Prime Minister is prepared to go all the way. I shall enjoy those three years. I shall express my opinion forcefully. I think that hon. Members agree that I do just that. I shall continue to do so provided, of course, I catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. I never speak without being called. I behave myself in the Chamber, as do many others. [Interruption.] I do not do things like that. The hon. Member for Northampton, North, with his coat of many colours, should have worn a rose today, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen); it

139
would have looked very nice. But I am straying from my argument about taxation, and I want to save you from having to pull me into line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have made my point, but I shall continue to make my point about Europe telling us what to do. I shall decide for myself what I do and I shall express my views on behalf of my constituents because I believe that they do not need telling what to do.
As I told the hon. Member for Southend, East last week, we stand side by side and arm in arm in the argument about Europe. If Europe would leave us alone, we could get on with the job and do the right thing on behalf of the people we represent here.
12.20 am
Mr. Lilley: The debate has been remarkable because the proposal from the Commission has been rejected not only by the Government and the Opposition, but even by the representative of the Liberal party. If that is not a message which the Commission should take to heart, nothing is.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and one or two others, I should make it clear that the Government are wholeheartedly opposed to any form of tax evasion. It is right and proper for national Governments and Governments in co-operation to act against tax evasion. Nor are we against withholding tax at source, where it is appropriate. We have the composite rate tax which could be described as a form of withholding tax. We use it where we believe that it is effective and where it does not have damaging practical consequences, as it would if it were extended to commercial markets and large deposits.
We believe that Governments should co-operate and we have one of the largest networks of double taxation agreements with other countries which enable us to co-operate in collecting taxation and preventing evasion. It is right that that should continue.
We are quite happy to consider the proposals, although we have reservations about some aspects in the second directive. We certainly have no difficulties with their approach; there are merely practical problems in a directive which has not yet been given very thorough consideration by the Commission or by member states.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked me for an assurance that the proposal required unanimity and could not be imposed on us by the
140
workings of the European Court. I give him that assurance. In the case of taxation, the operations of the European Court apply only when a directive has been brought into effect by unanimous assent by the member states. Then the court has the duty to interpret it and, in the event of any dispute, rule on the precise meaning of the directive. As a result of such rulings, it was determined that a directive agreed to in 1977 under the Labour Government had a wider sense than was originally thought, in the case of the ruling on opticians and spectacles, and the ruling that we are currently putting through the House applying VAT to property and construction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a number of valuable points, in particular that competition between national Governments in their setting of tax rates is not necessarily a bad thing as it can provide downward pressure on tax when normally all the pressures are upwards. That is particularly important given that Europe is a trading community which has to be competitive with the rest of the world. If Europe were ever to believe that it was immune to competition from the rest of the world and set tax rates which would render it uncompetitive with the rest of the world it would put itself at a grave disadvantage. So long as tax rates are primarily set by national Governments taking account of their competitive position in Europe and against the rest of the world, that danger will not arise.
I am grateful to the House for largely supporting the Government's position on withholding tax. The message that the House has given will contribute to a sensible decision on the issue in Brussels.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4763/89 relating to taxation of savings; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are unnecessary, ineffective and damaging.

EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Rowe be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. William Cash be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
Ordered,
That Mr. David Winnick be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Ms. Diane Abbott be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Child Abuse (Government Research)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
12.25 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a rare opportunity for a Member to draw an Adjournment debate and I hope that I do justice to that opportunity by raising an important topic.
The sexual abuse of children is a difficult, sensitive policy area on which I can claim no expertise. Like many Members of Parliament, it was not until a particularly horrendous constituency case came to light that my education began. In that case the perpetrators received long gaol sentences, and rightly so. It falls to Parliament to look more deeply at this issue—not merely to pick up the pieces, but to initiate an active programme of preventive measures after thorough research. That will reduce the risks facing children to the lowest humanly possible. We can help future potential victims. There is no place for crocodile tears, sympathy without funding or condemnation without action.
It is customary to say that this is a party political issue, but such genteel courtesies have no place in such a desperately serious matter. I unreservedly condemn the Conservative Government's wholly inadequate response to this phenomenon, but make it clear that the next Labour Government will be subject to equally vehement exposure if they fail to respond with the urgency and commitment that the issue deserves.
My calculations of the amounts spent indicate a pathetic level of Government support for research into the sexual abuse of children. The level of spending is a national scandal and disgrace, and amounts to less than £1 million from the Department of Health over 10 years. The Government may regard that as some sort of saving, but even at the crude economic level the logic is flawed, for where the Government do not help, other agencies have to step in, often in an unco-ordinated and wasteful way—county councils' social services departments, charities, private institutions and academic workers, all re-inventing the wheel and duplicating their efforts, despite desperately scarce resources.
The Government have a role. Why should the third international conference on incest and related problems, which is taking place in Britain this August, depend wholly on voluntary contributions and fees? Why are the Government not taking the initiative and supporting such conferences? Why is the leading centre for rehabilitating sexual offenders, the Gracewell clinic, privately run? In the United States of America, Australia and Europe Governments of all colours live up to their responsibilities. In Ontario the state institute for child sex abuse is funded to the tune of £1 million a year. Nothing less than that is acceptable for the United Kingdom.
We and future generations of children need a national institute for the study of sexual abuse of children. It needs to be properly funded and its long-term future guaranteed. The alternative is the Haile Selassie approach, where the Prime Minister ventures out of her enclave with a cheque for £800,000 for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—culled, incidentally, from existing, not new, moneys.
Such an auction for resources engenders competitive, not co-operative, efforts, even among those most
142
committed in this area. At best, it skews what little money there is towards London, while at the same time question marks are placed over the Inner London education authority child guidance centres. There is also little cheer in the National Health Service review, where child psychiatry does not even rate a mention.
I have spent little time on the scale of the problem, nor with any of the heartbreaking individual cases, but to illustrate the extent of the problem I shall quote from the Incest Crisis Line document. It states:
"At least one in ten children in this country are sexually abused by the time they reach their early teens, the vast majority of those are abused by people known to them and trusted by them … The victims of such behaviour are both male and female, and follow no particular age, race, colour, religion, social or class structure, in fact, abuse of this kind is relentlessly democratic … Remember, 75 per cent. of this world's prostitutes, almost all male prostitutes, 45 per cent. of drug and alcohol abusers, 40 per cent. of children in care, 40 per cent. of prison inmates and 30 per cent. of rape victims were abused sexually as children. Just think what social ills could be eradicated if we were all to deal with this problem in the right way."
As politicians, the right way for us must be to place the responsibility on Parliament, directly on the Government and specifically on the Department of Health.
Examining the matter from a different perspective, may I say that the magnificent social services department in Nottinghamshire—rightly praised by the Prime Minister —has informed me that the number of children registered as suffering, or likely to suffer sexual abuse, has doubled in the past two years.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) in the Chamber. I know that this matter is of special importance to him.
Mr. Meale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving this debate on an important topic. Is he aware that not only in the centre of Nottinghamshire but throughout the county there is a clear increase in child abuse? Is he further aware of the pressure that has been placed on social workers in social services departments all over the county? The crisis has reached such proportions that in some offices social workers are terrified to lift the telephone because they know that they will have to take on the case from stage one right through to the end, which can be a harrowing experience. Social workers are leaving the profession because of that stress.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically stout defence of Nottinghamshire social services department and, as usual, has put his finger on several points. First, the incidence of sexual abuse in our county has increased from just over 100 two years ago to 200 now. There is great stress, not just on social workers but on all those involved—the police, foster parents and others. Cases in Nottinghamshire vary in age from 17-year-olcls to babies in nappies, only a few weeks old, suffering sexual abuse. More than half the cases in Nottinghamshire involve children under the age of nine. Any human being with any sensitivity—even a highly trained professional—suffers immense stress when dealing with such cases. I know that the caring people involved in the case in my constituency to which I referred suffered immense personal hardship and, in some cases, domestic damage as a result of their efforts.

143
The authorities are improving in a number of respects —for example, in their ability to investigate these acts; sadly, they do not lack the practice. Nevertheless, there are ways in which Government research can help in the process of discovery and in spreading knowledge. I shall point to one or two areas where more work is necessary and more Government support is essential if the work required is to be done. For example, we need to be able to assess the risks of keeping a child in a family where parental bonds are strong. What rehabilitation, if any, is possible or advisable if the child is not to suffer the additional problem of being separated from his or her family? That is a delicate question. A great deal of in-depth research is needed before social workers and others put their heads on the line, as a judgment based on wrong information may be catastrophic for the child placed back with the family.
Another matter that needs to be looked into is the compulsive nature of the offence. What happens after prison if perpetrators have not changed or even recognised that their behaviour is deviant? How effective is prison when compared with group work or individual therapy? What can be done to reduce or eliminate any reoffending by examining and identifying predicting factors? For example, a relationship might be found between violent offences and sexual abuse, and perhaps there are other characteristics that may help us to predict potential incidents of child abuse.
Another vital question, on which a great deal of research is needed, is where and when the sexual abuse of children begins. What is the mix of psychological, environmental and even biological factors that needs to be identified and tackled if we are to pre-empt abuse? What is the link between being a victim of abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse? What is the knock-on effect across the generations?
What is the effect of the availability of child pornography on people who are susceptible to becoming perpetrators of child abuse? Even more arcane, what is the effect of a culture that lays down Victorian, medieval or even pre-biblical roles for men and women?
A further subject of research is the effective placement and care of victims. That, too, needs thorough investigation. An abused child put into care with delinquents or even adolescent perpetrators of abuse is bound to do less well than those in special residential care perhaps—for example, in a girls' establishment with a staff composed entirely of women. Examining the training of fosterers is also important. We owe so much to those who foster abused children. We need to ensure that the long-term damage to victims can be identified by the fosterers and that they are adequately trained to treat the children in the most effective and sensitive way.
Mr. Meale: Might we not also appeal to the Minister to consider the protection of the child by the removal of the perpetrator from the home? It would take a considerable amount of central Government finance to allow social services departments to open holding homes in which to put suspected perpetrators until they are found guilty or not guilty but the child could then try, with the help of social services, to get over his or her trauma at home.
Mr. Allen: This area has been subject to so many taboos that one would have thought that the sexual abuse of children was a modern phenomenon, but it is not. We must discuss and investigate the subject and that is why the Government's research programme is the key.
We must investigate the possible effect on the child of its removal, or the removal of one of its parents, from a stable environment. That may be an inappropriate phrase to use in the circumstances, but it is an accurate one. In certain circumstances such removal compounds the injuries suffered by the child. Equally there may be other effects caused by the removal of the parent. Those are areas where we cannot have a reflex response. If we are to tackle the questions in the most appropriate way, we need a serious and long-term study funded by the Government. The most appropriate way is not always the one that we first think of, but a research programme would eliminate that possibility.
Many of the youngsters are, of course, coerced into sexual activity. Obviously that affects their views of adults, even those seeking to help them. How do we best train foster parents, for example, to cope with that situation and to overcome that problem? Once again the need for a national research resource for such analysis cries out for recognition.
On training and expertise there is no bank of co-ordinated assistance available for social service departments and other agencies. In my constituency there was little external expertise and advice available when a major case came to light. Even after the successful conclusion of that case, to my knowledge no contact was made by the Government. There was no systematic attempt to spread the lessons and the best practices after that case. Such a free market approach is immoral and unforgivable.
The limited research that is taking place is, of course, welcome and valuable, but so many vital areas are neglected. Another area that should be explored is the vulnerability of the woman at home where the male is the perpetrator. Many of the women are ignorant of the abuse, they may be colluding, feel powerless or are frightened to stop it and report it. Once again we must know the facts so that we are better prepared to assist women in that situation.
We must also ensure that children are more able to disclose offences—90 per cent. disclose to teachers, a parent, the police, neighbours, school friends or fosterers. Many of those groups could be trained in the techniques that make disclosure even easier. To do that we need to know more about the form in which abuse begins as victims are often more willing to disclose the less serious abuse than they are the more serious. We need to have more information to train people to detect the behavioural signs that will give an early warning of any sexual abuse, for example, over-sexual behaviour in children, bed wetting, mistrust and a withdrawn nature.
The expertise developed from the hundreds of cases and the 20 or so child abuse inquiries held since 1979 should not be dissipated. There are 1,000 questions and a 1,000 areas of initial research that could form the base for the answers to those questions.
I call upon the Government and I call upon the Minister tonight to commit himself and his Department to re-examine the level of funding for their research programme into the sexual abuse of children, to consider developing a national centre for the study of child sexual

145
abuse and now to make a serious effort to tackle the problem. This generation of children and the generations of children to come deserve nothing less.
12.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important debate. He and I are at least agreed that this is a serious subject and one to which the House should frequently return.
I shall deal first with a point made by the hon. Gentleman at the outset of his speech. I understood him to say that research resources were being skewed towards London. He specifically cited the Prime Minister's recent announcement that £800,000 was being made available to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I should make it plain that the money is for the NSPCC's national training centre in Leicester, not London. We have committed £125,000 this year from central health service funding to the development of a centre of excellence in child protection in Newcastle. We certainly reject any attempt to argue that research resources are skewed towards the capital because that is not so.
I reject the assertion that we have been, and are, neglecting research into child sexual abuse. In the minutes remaining to me, I shall seek to argue that we have a well-founded and properly co-ordinated research programme.
The House will know that research on child sexual abuse has only in recent years begun to develop. The initial interest was in the United States, and that country is still pre-eminent in the field with a substantial and growing corpus of research, much of which is of relevance to our work in this country. However, the contribution made by British researchers in this country is growing rapidly, and I think it is now generally recognised that the United Kingdom is second only to the United States in terms of both the quantity and quality of research into child sexual abuse. This was underlined only last month at the second European conference on child abuse and neglect in Brussels, where more research and practice papers were presented from the United Kingdom than from any other country; and at which the first European scholarship on child abuse was presented to a British researcher, Jacqui Roberts of Dundee university. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating her on her extremely valuable contribution to the subject.
I should emphasise that in order to ensure that projects are chosen which will add to the knowledge base that already exists, such projects need to be considered properly and thoroughly before they are commissioned. In order to achieve this, the Department of Health has available a number of eminent professional and scientific advisers from whom advice is sought. In addition, the Department holds regular meetings with a research liaison group on child care which contains service advisers from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and scientific advisers from the Institute of Child Health and the universities of Bristol, York and Leicester. Senior officials also attend from other Government Departments. All projects are thoroughly
146
scrutinised through this mechanism to ensure that they are likely to provide sound and reliable results, and do not duplicate work already done or in progress.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in research, it is extremely important to ensure that it is not only carefully prepared with the best possible academic advice so that old ground is not recovered, but properly co-ordinated. We must not merely throw money at research, but ensure that it is thoroughly prepared.
As part of the Department's aim to attract more relevant projects from organisations undertaking research, child protection was made a priority theme for research for 1989. This has stimulated interest from academic institutions and other research organisations and the Department has received several new proposals, which we are in the process of considering.
The Department of Health, which has the lead in child care matters, has put together a full and effective programme of child protection research in recent years. The hon. Member will recall that these studies were detailed by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in response to a question from him on 27 January, and included a number of studies which related to both physical and sexual abuse. The total cost of studies completed in this field since 1980 is £180,000.
My hon. and learned Friend's reply also listed the projects which were currently in progress and under consideration. A number of these covered both physical and sexual abuse of children, but included was a study by Professor Philip Graham and Dr. Arnon Bentovirn of the Institute of Child Health on intervention in child sexual abuse, which looked at the characteristics and outcomes of a treatment programme for child sexual abuse victims and their families; and a study by Dr. Marjory Smith of the Institute of Child Health of normal sexual knowledge in children, which aims to collect systematic and reliable information on sexual knowledge in children and behaviour in families to see whether it is possible to identify children who have been sexually abused on the basis of their sexual knowledge and behaviour.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the importance of research, and I agree with him. These two studies alone are expected to cost about £225,000. Total expenditure committed to current research projects by my Department is more than £500,000—
Mr. Meale: Peanuts.
Mr. Freeman: I do not agree. Research in this field has developed only in recent years. It is extremely important that it be founded on the best possible academic advice and properly co-ordinated with the private sector and other Government Departments. The Government do not believe that one can just throw money at the problem.
Among the projects listed as under consideration by my hon. and learned Friend, I am pleased to be able to say that two, on parental perceptions in child abuse and parental participation in case conferences, have now been commissioned. Of the projects which are still under consideration, in relation to the feasibility study on prevalence of child sexual abuse a research brief is being prepared for discussion with interested researchers, and we hope to commission a study in the course of this year.
In order to ensure that the Government have a co-ordinated, effective and comprehensive approach to all child care policy matters an inter-departmental group on

147
child abuse was set up in March 1987, comprising senior officials in Departments with responsibilities for children. The group has provided a valuable forum in which policies and practices in the respective areas of responsibility of individual Departments has been developed consistently and with due regard for each other. The group meets at about quarterly intervals and discusses a number of child care issues, including research. It was largely through the group that Departments produced co-ordinated and complimentary guidance on the handling of cases of child abuse and child sexual abuse from this Department and the Welsh Office to relevant agencies, in response to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's excellent report on Cleveland.
As part of this co-ordinated approach to research into child sexual abuse, I know that the Home Office has in progress a research study on the effectiveness of video links in child sexual abuse cases which will cost £45,000.
The hon. Gentleman has asked the Department of Health a number of parliamentary questions, at least two of which related to the importance of video links. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Home Office have decided to pursue this important aspect of research. The Home Office is also considering the commission of further research studies, including one on the prevention of child sexual abuse, which will cost about £90,000.
The Scottish Office has supported a number of continuing projects, including the professional identification of, and response to, child sexual abuse in Scotland, and a longitudinal study of a group of sexually abused children in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will understand the term "longitudinal"; it refers to a study over a period of the development of a particular group of children and the potential effect of abuse on their behaviour—
Mr. Allen rose ߞ
Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall try to bring my remarks to a close.
The Scottish Office has also identified themes on the management and treatment of child sexual abuse and research into decision making in the children's hearing system which it is hoped will attract a number of research proposals.
The Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland, has funded a project on child sexual abuse incidence in Northern Ireland, and that is expected to be published shortly. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I place in the Library by the end of this week a comprehensive list of research completed, under way and contemplated by all Government Departments.
I have provided a rather brief survey of the programme of research which is in hand or being considered. Work in this field will, of course, continue to develop. My Department is aware of the necessity of looking forward in these matters and is already considering, for example, the need for new research that will be needed when the Children Bill is enacted.
It is important not only that good, effective research should be undertaken, but that the results of that research should be properly reflected in practice and in the planning and delivery of services. To this end my Department produced in 1985 "Social Work Decisions in Child Care", which provided a digest of recent research findings and their implications and was widely welcomed. I am glad to tell the House that a new paper will shortly be published. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he plans to take to ensure that special needs provision is protected within the framework of local financial management of schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  Circular 7/88 on local management of schools makes clear that LEAs will be expected to reflect in their LMS formulae the incidence of pupils with special educational needs in their schools. This will include both non-statemented pupils with learning difficulties and statemented pupils where provision for the latter is delegated to schools. It will be open to LEAs to propose to except from delegation provision for statemented pupils where they judge this to be the best way of ensuring that resources are targeted on the needs of the individual pupils concerned. Authorities may also choose to continue to manage centrally the range of advisory and support services associated with special needs provision.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he plans to do to ensure that resources are allocated within local financial management of schools to pupils with special educational needs but without statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Butcher
  Paragraph 115 of circular 7/88 on local management of schools makes clear that LEAs will be expected to reflect in their LMS formulae the incidence of pupils with special educational needs in their schools. This will include non-statemented pupils with learning difficulties. Where the numbers of such pupils vary between schools it will be open to LEAs to include a specific factor in their formulae designed to target resources according to the additional need to spend of certain schools.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the provisions made in section 19 of the Education Reform Act concerning the power of headteachers to temporarily exclude pupils with special needs from the national curriculum or to request that statements be made on such pupils is not misused.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department has issued for comment by 31 May draft regulations to be made under section 19 of the Education Reform Act governing temporary exceptions from the national curriculum for individual pupils. These include the following proposals for safeguards against misuse.

  A head teacher must give a special direction before lifting or modifying any national curriculum requirements in respect of an individual pupil for the purpose of assessment or reassessment for special educational needs. The special direction must include the headteacher's
  2
  reasons for judging that the pupil has or probably has special educational needs requiring the making or amendment of a statement. Copies must be sent to parents, the school governing body and the LEA. Parents will have the right of appeal to the governing body, which may overturn the headteacher's decision. There will be strict time limits on the duration of directions and the scope for renewals.

  A copy of the draft regulations has been placed in the Library.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to allocate additional resources for the training of teachers and others in the implementation of the national curriculum in respect of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Butcher
  Additional support for training teachers to implement the national curriculum is available through the LEA training grants scheme; £47·5 million is available for this purpose in the current financial year. It is for local education authorities to decide how much to spend, within this total, on training in respect of children with special educational needs.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria were used in the selection of the membership of the NCC task group on special educational needs.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for the National Curriculum Council, and not for my right hon. Friend to determine the selection of members of task groups.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he plans to publish the revision of circular 1/83; and whether he can indicate the results of the consultation process in respect of the draft revision;

  (2) whether he plans to give advice to local education authorities on the proper conduct of appeals in the light of the contents of the National Deaf Children's Society report entitled "A Mockery of Needs";

  (3) whether, in the light of the contents of the National Deaf Children's Society report entitled "A Mockery of Needs" he will take further steps to ensure that parents of children with special educational needs receive accurate up-to-date information and adequate support at diagnosis following the provisions made in section 10 of the Education Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department of Health, the Welsh Office and this Department have received a substantial number of responses to the draft circular to replace circular 1/83. They have indicated a general welcome to the provision of new guidance to local education authorities, health authorities and social services departments on the procedures to be followed in the implementation of various provisions in the Education Act 1981. They have made a number of detailed observations which are now being considered by the Departments. The contents of the National Deaf Children's Society's report will also be taken into consideration. We hope to issue the new circular within the next few months. Guidance on the conduct of local appeals is included in the code of practice on appeals prepared by the local authority associations and the Council on Tribunals.
  3
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 against the special educational provision set out in the statement of special educational needs he has received since 1983 in respect of(a) all children with statements of special educational need and (b) deaf children with statements of special educational needs; and how many of these appeals have gone in the parents' favour.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has received 150 appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 since 1983. It is not possible to identify from the Department's records how many of those appeals were in respect of deaf children. My right hon. Friend has amended the statement of special educational needs in 34 of those appeals. Decisions have yet to be taken on 25 appeals.

  Schools Examination and Assessment Council
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure representation from special education sectors on the Schools Examination and Assessment Council.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Financial year

  Area sq ft

  Opportunity cost-rent

  Contribution in lieu of rates

  Club subscription for minor works and maintenance

  Administration charges on 5

  Total annual costs

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1984–85

  193,239

  3,857,031

  2,887,683

  760,741

  181,927

  7,687,382

  1985–86

  180,616

  3,569,792

  2,522,640

  786,386

  187,534

  7,066,352

  1986–87

  178,222

  3,616,573

  3,076,339

  768,223

  182,250

  7,643,385

  1987–88

  178,990

  3,730,160

  3,022,937

  631,163

  157,269

  7,541,529

  1988,89

  182,423

  3,934,872

  2,969,576

  945,710

  234,804

  8,084,962

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department, like most other Government Departments, operates cash-based systems which enable Parliament to be satisfied that amounts of cash voted to be spent on certain activities have been so spent. There has, therefore, been no overall need, apart from those limited areas where repayment to transactions are conducted, to maintain comprehensive up-to-date valuations of plant and equipment, the purchase cost of which is tightly controlled through the cash accounting system and plant and equipment asset replacement charges are often not entered in the accounts.

  Radiation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the research commissioned by his Department into the relationship between cancer and radiation in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since 1976 the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid through my Department, has supported a total of 191 projects relevant to the relationship between cancer and radiation—both in its own establishments and through its grant schemes. I am
  4
  Mr. Butcher
  Last year Professor Peter Mittler, director of the centre for educational guidance and special needs at the university of Manchester, accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to become a member of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates of his Department in total, in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information in the precise form requested is not available without incurring disproportionate cost. The Department has, however, paid the Property Services Agency for accommodation and services under the property repayment system since 1 April 1984. Under these arrangements, annual charges for accommodation, including those incurred by non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate, have been as follows:

  arranging for a list of these research projects to be sent to the right hon. Member and for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide details of research conducted prior to 1976.

  Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average salary paid to all those vice-chancellors or principals at United Kingdom universities, for whom data are collected, in 1989 and each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department does not collect information on the salaries of vice-chancellors or principals.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to allow city technology colleges to introduce selection based on attainable levels at the age of 11 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Pupils admitted to city technology colleges represent a wide range of abilities and will have demonstrated their aptitude to benefit from the particular type of education to be offered. In time, national assessments at age 11 will provide evidence of the distribution of attainment on entry to CTCs.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the study being carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry into benzodiazepines will be completed; and whether it will be published.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Institute of Psychiatry is currently carrying out several studies related to benzodiazepines. It is anticipated that they will be completed by September 1989. The researchers would be expected, as is the usual practice, to disseminate their findings through appropriate professional journals.

  Teachers (Incentive Allowances)
  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 8 May,Official Report, columns 298–99, if information from the 1988 secondary staffing survey can be used to test the accuracy of his Department's expectations in relation to the automatic award of incentive allowances in October 1987 for that sector, without reference to the DTR data mentioned in his reply; if he will publish a table showing comparative figures for entitlement to such allowances (a) derived from the results of the 1988 secondary staffing survey and (b) his Department's plans; if he will, by other means, estimate the number of each rate of incentive allowance awarded automatically in secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Data from the 1988 secondary school staffing survey can in due course be compared with the assumptions in circular 8/87 about the number of teachers in secondary schools who would receive an incentive allowance automatically in October 1987. Such data are not yet available and, for a number of reasons, will not provide a precise measure of the accuracy of the assumptions in the circular. Information from the 1987 database of teacher records will enable more reliable comparisons to be made, and will shortly become

  Estimated cost1 of incentive allowances in ordinary schools

  1987–882

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total cost (£ million)

  113

  319

  366

  Costs attributable to the automatic award of incentive allowances in October 1987 (£ million)

  106 (94 per cent.)

  3236 (74 per cent.)

  3250 (68 per cent.)

  1 Costs are cash values for financial years and include employers' on-costs.

  2 1 October 1987 to 31 March 1988.

  3 These figures assume that all the teachers who received an incentive allowance automatically in 1987 continued to teach in ordinary schools and to be paid the same allowance. They are therefore overstated because in practice a significant number would have been promoted or ceased to work in such schools

  University Students
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many full-time students there were in(a)British and (b)Scottish universities for each year since 1973;

  (2) how many full-time women university students there were in (a) British and (b)Scottish universities for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  6
  available. There are no other practical means of estimating the number of allowances awarded automatically in that year.

  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 8 May,Official Report, columns 298–99, if information from the 1987 primary staffing survey will be used to test the accuracy of his Department's expectations in relation to the automatic award of incentive allowances in October 1987 for that sector, without reference to the DTR data mentioned in his reply; if he will publish a table showing comparative figures for entitlement to such allowances (a) derived from the results of the 1987 primary staffing survey and (b) his Department's plans; if he will, by other means, estimate the number of each rate of incentive allowance awarded automatically in primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not plan to compare the assumptions in circular 8/87 about the number of teachers in primary schools receiving an incentive allowance automatically in October 1987 with data from the 1987 primary school staffing survey. Information from the 1987 database of teacher records will enable more reliable comparisons to be made, and will shortly become available. There are no other practical means of estimating the number of allowances awarded automatically in that year.

  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 8 May,Official Report, column 299, what is the estimated planned cost of incentive allowances in financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 on a similar basis to that reply, distinguishing the amount and proportion in each year attributable to the automatic award of allowances in October 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time students in universities in Scotland and Great Britain

  Thousands

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  Total

  Of which women

  Total

  Of which women

  1973

  39·0

  13·8

  244·1

  77·7

  1974

  39·7

  14·6

  250·6

  82·5

  1975

  40·5

  15·2

  261·3

  87·7

  1976

  41·6

  15·9

  271·8

  92·5

  1977

  42·3

  16·2

  280·5

  97·1

  1978

  43·0

  16·7

  288·4

  102·2

  1979

  43·3

  17·2

  292·7

  107·3

  1980

  44·4

  18·0

  298·7

  112·4

  1981

  45·0

  18·7

  300·2

  115·4

  1982

  44·8

  18·9

  295·4

  115·7

  1983

  44·8

  18·9

  291·7

  115·0

  7

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  Total

  Of which women

  Total

  Of which women

  1984

  45·3

  19·0

  290·6

  116·0

  1985

  46·2

  19·3

  295·5

  118·4

  1986

  47·2

  19·7

  301·3

  121·8

  1987

  48·3

  20·5

  305·4

  125·2

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time university students of(a) Asian, (b) African and (c) other ethnic minority origins there were in (i) British and (ii) Scottish universities for each year since 1973, excluding foreign students.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not at present collected centrally. It will be collected for students starting undergraduate courses in 1990.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time students from social groups IIIM, IV and V there were in the British universities for each year since 1973; and how many of them registered in courses of Scottish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of home university students accepted through the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA), and who were from social groups III M, IV and V since 1977 in the United Kingdom are shown in the following table. Comparable figures for Scottish universities are not readily available. Nor are figures for earlier years.

  Numbers of home acceptances through UCCA from social classes III M, IV, V

  Numbers (000's)

  1977

  14·8

  1978

  14·9

  1979

  15·4

  11980

  14·0

  1981

  11·8

  1982

  11·8

  1983

  12·3

  1984

  13·0

  1985

  14·3

  1986

  14·4

  1987

  14·7

  1 A new coding system was introduced in 1980. Figures for earlier years are not strictly comparable.

  School Watch Video
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of the poster advertising the school watch video sent to every chair of every school governing body.

  Mr. Butcher
  The cost of printing and distributing copies of the poster to all chairs of school governing bodies was £4,883, borne equally by the Department and Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd., which jointly sponsored the project.

THE ARTS

  Arts Festival
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many additional annual arts festivals have been established since 1979.
  8
  Mr. Luce
  The publication "Arts Festival in Great Britain" estimates that in 1989 there will be more than 600 festivals taking place in Great Britain which have a professional performing element. Information on the number of arts festivals that were held in 1979 is not available.

  Touring Fund
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom touring fund.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council's Great Britain touring fund was established in 1987–88 with £1.5 million from the extra £5 million that I made available to the Council for Incentive Funding and Touring. In its first year, the fund enabled more than 60 extra weeks of touring across all art forms. Figures are not yet available for 1988–89, but they are expected to show a further increase.

  Library Services
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the effects of the proposal to charge for obtaining and notifying the availability or non-availability of an item reserved on those living in rural areas, ethnic minorities, and those whose library service is limited or poorly provided for in circumstances beyond their control.

  Mr. Luce
  I have considered carefully the comments made by respondents to the library Green Paper. I have also taken account of library authorities' current charging policies on reservation fees. I intend that authorities should continue to have discretion to decide whom to charge, and whom to exempt or offer concessionary rates of charging, subject only to a maximum limitation. I will in due course consult on what that limitation should be.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence is available on(a) the time and quality of personal assistance to users given by libraries and library staff, (b) the number of requests for assistance that cannot be met within half an hour and (c) the effect of the likelihood of charging to particular classes of use or user.

  Mr. Luce
  I intend to consult local authority associations, and other bodies as I consider appropriate, about these and other issues before introducing any regulations.

TRANSPORT

  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he is planning to introduce to regulate the transport of radioactive material.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of radioactive material is carried out in accordance with national and international regulations which are under continuous review. The United Kingdom takes a leading part in the review process which is administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which the United Kingdom is a member state.

  The list of the current regulations in force for the transport of radioactive material is as follows:
  9
  REGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

  International recommended regulations
  International Atomic Energy Agency's safety series No. 6 Regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials 1973 edition (as amended)
  As above but 1985 edition
  International Atomic Energy Agency's safety series No. 80 Schedule of requirements for the transport of specified types of radioactive material consignments (companion to safety series No. 6 1985 edition)
  International Atomic Energy Agency's safety series No. 37 Advisory material for the application of the IAEA transport regulations 1982 edition (for 1973 IAEA regulations) and 1987 edition (for 1985 IAEA regulations)

  NATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CODES OF PRACTICE FOR THE TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS BASED ON THE IAEA SAFETY SERIES Nos. 6 AND 37

  Road
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974 (SE 1974 No. 1735)
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1729)
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (SR 1983 No. 344)
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (SR 1986 No. 61)
  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1333) Code of practice for the protection of persons against ionising radiations arising from any work activity
  Code of practice for the carriage of radioactive materials by road

  Sea
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No. 1747)
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (SI No. 1069)
  Report of the Standing Committee on the Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Ships 1978 ("The Blue Book") Class 7

  Air
  The Air Navigation Order 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1643)
  The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1939)
  The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 2129)

  Ports
  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 37)
  All the above are obtainable from Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Rail
  British Rail list of dangerous goods and the conditions of acceptance for carriage by freight train and by passenger train or similar service (Class 7)
  Obtainable from British Railways Board, Melbury house, Melbury terrace, London NW1 6JU

  Inland Waterways
  British Waterways Board terms and conditions: Dangerous Goods BWB 1981, and Schedule of Dangerous Goods ("The Green Book") BWB 1981 (Class 7)
  Obtainable from Freight Services Division, Central Administration Office, British Waterways Board, Melbury House, Melbury terrace, London NW1 6J

  INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CODES FOR THE TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS BASED ON IAEA SAFETY SERIES No. 6

  Road in Europe
  European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) (Class 7)

  Rail in Europe
  Convention concerning the International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B, Uniform rules concerning the contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) Annex 1, Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) (Class 7)
  The above are obtainable from Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  10
  Sea
  International Maritime Organisation (IMO) International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) (Class 7)
  Obtainable from International Maritime Organisation, Albert Embankment, London SE1

  Air
  International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Class 7)
  Obtainable from IAL Distribution Agent, Lambourne Woodlands, Newbury, Berks RG16 7TW

  Motorway Repairs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to undertake a review of departmental procedures relating to motorway repairs, in respect of(a) evaluating the costs of delays to road users, and (b) the potential for keeping at least two motorway lanes open during repairs;

  (2) what studies he has undertaken of the costs to road users of long delays caused by motorway repairs; and what action he has taken and plans to take, following such studies;

  (3) if he will make it his policy always to keep open at least two motorway lanes during motorway repairs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is continually looking at ways of improving its procedures, including the programming and timing of roadworks, traffic management at roadworks and the time taken to execute works. A number of improvements have been introduced in recent years, such as better layouts for contraflow systems, mobile lane closures and lane rental contracts.

  The costs of traffic delays expected at major roadworks are assessed using the Department's computer model QUADRO (queuing and delays at roadworks). Bonus payments to contractors for early completion of lane rental contracts, or charges to contractors for late completion, are based on QUADRO assessments. Since lane rental contracts were introduced in 1984 we estimate that they have saved about 2,000 days of delay worth £35 million to road users.

  Current developments include improvements to QUADRO, a new computerised system for the co-ordination and scheduling of roadworks, and traffic management experiments designed to increase lane capacity through roadworks.

  Our policy is not to reduce three-lane carriageways to one lane except where this is unavoidable, and then normally only in off-peak periods, often at night.

  Deaf Drivers
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to resist European Commission proposals which would bar deaf people from driving minibuses and light goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no justification on road safety grounds for tougher controls on the drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles. We are pressing the European Commission at every level to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on them. We can see no justification for preventing deaf people from driving such vehicles.

  We want to maintain and enhance mobility for special needs groups and common interest groups. We do not want unnecessary additional driving and medical tests. We aim to protect our present arrangements in the

  11
  negotiations in the Council of Ministers. I am sending a copy of this question and answer to the new Commissioner for Transport.

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department's current standard for motorways of dual-four lane width stipulates that they should be continuously lit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's current standard for motorways of dual-four lane width does not stipulate that they should be continuously lit. The provision of lighting on motorways has first to be justified by economic and environmental assessment. For new and improved motorways of more than dual-three lane width a special case can be made.

  M25
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the noise bunds and barriers alongside the M25 are(a) earth bunds with planting and (b) walls or fences.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Miles

  Noise bund

  15·5

  Noise barrier

  13·5

  Noise barrier on bund

  3·0

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 447, he expects to be able to list the latest available traffic flows using the M25 entry and exit slip roads; and whether he will at the same time list in the Official Report the matching main carriageway flows in each direction between interchanges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These traffic flows will be made available when the report of the M25 review is published.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state, for the M25 traffic flows listed in the Official Report on 24 April, columns 445–46, the factors his Department uses for correcting for seasonal effects; from what source these are derived; and how these factors differ from those used for other trunk roads and motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M25 traffic flows were adjusted for seasonal and other effects by scaling to automatic counts for the full year. Complete annual counts are not generally available for other roads. Annual average daily flows are usually estimated from 12-hour counts using a common set of adjustment factors for each road class. These factors are derived from analysis of regular monthly censuses at 170 core sites.

  Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the rail link to Manchester airport.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect to receive an investment submission from British Rail shortly.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The spending by the Department of Transport on television advertising in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Financial year

  Privatisation

  Non-privatisation

  Total

  1984–85

  Nil

  1,552,810

  1,552,810

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1986–87

  2,731,544

  Nil

  2,731,544

  1987–88

  3,701,725

  2,191,494

  5,893,219

  1988–89

  Nil

  1,725,128

  1,725,128

  Information on expenditure with individual television companies is commercially confidential.

  Accident Black Spots
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will estimate the cost of accidents at accident black spots each year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of people (a) killed and (b) seriously injured at accident black spots each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available.

  Definitions of casualty sites vary widely between local authorities. Many authorities bring new locations currently not considered as bad into their lists as higher priority sites are progressively treated. An attempt to compile a list would be misleading.

  Accident investigation and prevention schemes remain one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing casualties. Existing advice to local authorities on AIP work is now being supplemented by new guidance being prepared jointly with the Institution of Highways and Transportation on an areawide safety engineering.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average cost of small improvement schemes at accident black spots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average cost of small improvement schemes at casualty sites is difficult to determine because local highway authority definitions vary. The best indication can be found in the Department's transport and road research laboratory report "Accident reduction and prevention programmes in Highway Authorities—1987".

  From a sample of accident investigation and prevention schemes for which complete data were available, the authors found that the average cost per scheme is about £6,000 for non-trunk roads and £12,000 for trunk roads.

  13
  The distribution of scheme costs is wide and when all costed schemes are considered, almost 60 per cent. of urban and 75 per cent. of rural schemes cost less than £5,000.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Football Pool Betting Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Exchequer has raised from football pool betting duty in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Following is the information:

  £ million

  1979–80

  136·1

  1980–81

  157·0

  1981–82

  176·0

  1982–83

  199·3

  1983–84

  204·9

  1984–85

  217·9

  1985–86

  235·2

  1986–87

  254·2

  1987–88

  275·2

  1988–89

  278·9

  MIRAS
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow the interest on semi-commercial mortgages taken out on premises which contain a shop and living accommodation, to be set against income tax under the MIRAS system.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Student Grants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Excheque whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Taunton on 20 April,Official Report, columns 232–33, he has any plans to enable parents affected by the abolition of tax relief on increases in parental contributions for students to cancel existing covenants sothat the students' application for grants might be assessed in accordance with the new scale instituted after the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have no such plans.

  Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April 1989 the information on net earnings provided in his reply of 10 February 1987 to the then hon. Member for Fulham,Official Report, columns 177–78.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of the levels of earnings at the top 5 per cent. point of the earnings distribution are not published. The information in the table is based on estimates of these levels derived from published figures in the relevant new earnings surveys. Results of the survey in April 1989 are not available yet so estimates for April 1988 are given in the table. Earnings levels are for men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowances.
  14

  Earnings after Tax, National Insurance Contributions1 and Child Benefit (£ per week)

  April 19794

  April 1988

  Single man

  At current prices

  114·17

  333·26

  At constant April 1988 prices2

  222·45

  333·26

  Married man3

  At current prices

  117·98

  344·72

  At constant April 1988 prices2

  229·88

  344·72

  Married man3 with two children under 11

  At current prices

  125·98

  359·22

  At constant April 1988 prices2

  245·46

  359·22

  Single woman

  At current prices

  72·23

  209·20

  At constant April 1988 prices

  140·74

  209·20

  1 At the contracted in rate.

  2 By reference to the retail price index.

  3 Assuming no wife's earnings.

  4 Under the Finance Act 1979 tax regime.

  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1989–90 the information on real net earnings provided in his reply of 10 April 1986 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information is given in the tables:

  Multiples of average earnings1

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Income tax and Income tax and NIC as percentages of gross earnings

  Single

  1956–57

  Tax

  10·4

  16·6

  24·8

  40·5

  55·2

  Tax+NIC

  14·0

  18·9

  26·0

  41·0

  55·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  21·0

  25·0

  29·5

  50·5

  66·6

  Tax+NIC

  27·5

  31·5

  33·7

  52·2

  67·5

  1989–902

  Tax

  17·6

  20·1

  25·1

  34·1

  37·0

  Tax+NIC

  25·0

  28·0

  29·9

  36·0

  38·0

  Married

  1956–57

  Tax

  5·1

  11·2

  22·0

  38·9

  54·2

  Tax+NIC

  8·6

  13·5

  23·1

  39·4

  54·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  5·4

  21·3

  27·2

  48·8

  65·7

  Tax+NIC

  21·9

  27·8

  31·4

  50·5

  66·5

  1989–902

  Tax

  13·4

  17·3

  22·9

  33·2

  36·6

  Tax+NIC

  20·8

  25·2

  27·7

  35·1

  37·5

  Changes in real net earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57=100)

  Single

  1978–79

  124·9

  125·3

  132·8

  120·1

  108·3

  1989–902

  168·9

  172·0

  183·4

  210·1

  269·6

  Married

  1978–79

  126·8

  123·9

  132·4

  121·1

  109·0

  1989·902

  168·0

  167·7

  182·3

  207·4

  265·6

  1 Average earnings are those for full time males working a full week at adult rates in all occupations. They are £92.80 per week in 1978–79 and assumed to be £273.10 in 1989–90, an increase of 8¾ per cent, on average earnings in 1988–89 and an increase of 7½ per cent, on 1988–89 (the increases used by the Government Actuary in assessing the level of the National Insurance Fund as described in paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1988).

  2 Income tax rates and allowances used for 1989–90 are those

  15

  proposed in the 1989 Budget. The calculations also assume post-October NIC rates; before October people earning more than £115 per week will pay an additional £3·01 per week.

  VAT (Charities)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations he has had from Oxfam concerning the effect of value added tax regulation changes on its fund-raising capability; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take which will help offset any losses which may reduce the capability of Oxfam, and other similar voluntary bodies, to undertake their work.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received no representations from Oxfam about the new VAT exemption for charity fund-raising events which my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget speech on 14 March and which came into effect on 1 April. I have, however, received a number of representations from Oxfam supporters about the EC Commission's proposals for tax approximation by 1992, which would mean an end to the present VAT zero-rating for donated goods sold in charity shops. These proposals require the unanimous agreement of all member states and the Government will not accept proposals which remove our ability to retain zero rates.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the 1988–89 budget surplus was used to pay off the national debt; what are the details of the debts paid off; how much is estimated to have gone into reinvestment, and what is the basis for that estimate; how much is estimated to have gone into consumer expenditure; and what is the basis for that estimate.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Budget surplus in 1988–89 was forecast in the Financial Statement and Budget Report to have reduced the outstanding stock of net public sector debt (a more meaningful measure in modern circumstances than

  Tax units1 receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income 1989–90

  Range of total income

  Numbers receiving mortgage interest relief (thousands)

  Average value of relief to mortgagor (£)

  Total cost of relief(£ million)

  Under £4,000

  480

  480

  230

  £4,000 to £5,000

  160

  490

  80

  £5,000 to £6,000

  170

  490

  90

  £6,000 to £7,000

  270

  500

  130

  £7,000 to £8,000

  410

  620

  250

  £8,000 to £9,000

  430

  640

  280

  £9,000 to £10,000

  420

  650

  270

  £10,000 to £12,000

  860

  660

  570

  £12,000 to £15,000

  1,400

  660

  910

  £15,000 to £20,000

  1,880

  720

  1,350

  £20,000 to £25,000

  1,200

  720

  870

  £25,000 to £30,000

  610

  860

  520

  Over £30,000

  1,010

  1,200

  1,200

  TOTAL

  9,300

  730

  6,750

  1 Single persons and married couples.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the value of income tax personal allowances has
  16
  the national debt, strictly defined) by some £14 billion from £171 billion at end March 1988 to £157 billion at end March 1989.

  Outturn figures for net public sector debt outstanding at the end of 1988–89 will not be available until later in the year. However, details of net transactions in debt are available in the May Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin (table 7). This shows that the majority of the reduction in debt outstanding was in the form of a net repayment of British Government securities (gilts).

  In 1988–89 the large PSDR meant that the Government made net purchases of gilts so as to ensure it had a broadly neutral impact on liquidity. It is unlikely that this policy will have had any significant effect on consumers' expenditure. Also, in these circumstances it is only possible for individuals to reinvest in gilts to the extent that they are purchased from existing holders. There is no information readily available on transactions of this sort.

  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1989–90, (b) the average value of relief per mortgagor, and (c) the numbers receiving mortgage relief broken down in the following income ranges: under £4,000, £4,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £6,000, £6,000 to £7,000, £7,000 to £8,000, £8,000 to £9,000, £9,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £12,000, £12,000 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £25,000, £25,000 to £30,000 and over £30,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 May 1989]: Latest estimates for 1989–90, based on the assumption that interest rates remain at current levels for the rest of 1989–90, are given in the table. These are based on projections to 1989–90 of information in the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and the 1986 family expenditure survey and are provisional. The estimates include mortgages formerly under the option mortgage scheme which are now subsumed within MIRAS.

  increased in real terms since 1979; and how this amount has been distributed to each band of income taxpayers, both in total and in amount per taxpayer.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 May 1989]: Since 1978–79, the basic income tax personal allowances

  17
  have increased in real terms by over 25 per cent. If, for

  Single Person

  Married one-earner couple

  Married two-earner couple

  Income range £ per annum

  Total £ million

  Average per taxpayer1 £ per annum

  Total £ million

  Average per taxpayer1 £ per annum

  Total £ million

  Average per taxpayer1 £ per annum

  Less than 5,000

  300

  110

  20

  120

  2—

  —

  5,000—10,000

  600

  130

  310

  190

  110

  210

  10,000—15,000

  320

  140

  360

  220

  350

  290

  15,000—20,000

  100

  130

  190

  210

  460

  290

  20,000—25,000

  40

  130

  90

  210

  360

  310

  25,000—30,000

  20

  180

  50

  270

  230

  340

  30,000—50,000

  20

  210

  90

  330

  280

  370

  Over 50,000

  10

  210

  40

  330

  70

  380

  Total

  1,410

  140

  1,140

  220

  1,860

  320

  1 Taxpayers liable to tax when personal allowances are reduced to their indexed 1978–79 levels. Married couples are counted as one taxpayer.

  2 Less than £5 million.

  Taxation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1989 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply of 21 October 1986 to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)Official Report, columns 807–8.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reductions in income tax liabilities, 1989–90 income levels, of the proposed 1989–90 allowances, thresholds and rates in relation to the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1989–90 showing(a) the number of tax units, (b) the total amount of reduction and (c) the average reduction per tax unit in each of the following income ranges: under £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £30,000, £30,000 to £50,000 and over £50,000.

  Income tax thresholds, tax free income and break-even points

  Tax year

  Threshold at current prices£

  Threshold at 1949–50 prices£

  Threshold as percentage of average manual earnings1 per cent.

  Tax free income2 at current prices£

  Tax free income at 1949–50 prices£

  Tax free income as percentage of average manual earnings1 per cent.

  Break-even point3 at current prices£

  Break-even point3 at 1949–50 prices£

  Break-even point3 as percentage of average manual earnings1 per cent.

  Single person

  1978–79

  985

  17·1

  22·0

  985

  171

  22·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1989–904

  2,785

  214

  23·5

  2,785

  214

  23·5

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Married man—no children

  1978–79

  1,535

  266

  34·3

  1,535

  266

  34·3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1989–904

  4,375

  336

  36·9

  4,375

  336

  36·9

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Married man—with two children5

  1978–79

  1,735

  300

  38·8

  2,002

  346

  44·7

  2,727

  472

  61·0

  1989–904

  4,375

  336

  36·9

  5,129

  394

  43·3

  7,391

  568

  62·4

  Married man—with four children6

  1978–79

  2,035

  352

  45·5

  2,570

  445

  57·5

  3,836

  664

  85·8

  1989–904

  4,375

  336

  36·9

  5,883

  452

  49·6

  10,407

  800

  87·8

  1 Average manual earnings are for full-time males aged over 21 working a full week.

  2 Tax-free income is defined as the tax threshold plus child benefit

  3 Break-even point is the level of income at which income tax liability is equal to the money received through child benefit. It therefore gives the level of income above which the family pays more income tax than it obtains in benefits for children. Break-even points are not appropriate for families without children.

  4 On the basis of the 1989 Budget proposals. Estimates of thresholds and break-even points as a percentage of earnings are provisional.

  5 Both children aged under 11.

  6 Two children aged under 11, one aged between 11 and 15 and one aged 16 or over.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reductions in income tax
  18
  1989–90, personal allowances were to be reduced to their indexed 1978–79 levels total income tax liability would be increased by some £4.4 billion, distributed as follows:

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 May 1989]: I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 4 April 1989 at column 8.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the tax threshold. (b) tax free income and (c) break-even points at current prices, at 1949–50 prices and constant prices, as a percentage of average manual earnings for a single person, married man without children, married man with two children and married man with four children in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 May 1989]: The information is in the table.

  liabilities, at 1989–90 income levels, of the proposed 1989–90 allowances, thresholds and rates in relation to the

  19
  1978–79 regime indexed to 1989–90 showing (a) the number of tax units, (b) the total amount of reduction and (c) the average reduction per tax unit for the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of taxpayers and the bottom 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Reductions in income tax liabilities in 1989–90 compared with the 1978–79 indexed tax regime

  Point of income distribution1 in 1989–90

  Number of units2 paying tax in 1989–90 '000

  Total reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ million

  Average3 reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ per year

  Top 1 per cent.

  210

  5,450

  25,340

  Top 5 per cent.

  1,070

  9,030

  8,400

  Top 10 per cent.

  2,130

  11,290

  5,250

  Top 20 per cent.

  4,260

  14,200

  3,320

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  2,130

  370

  120

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  4,260

  900

  170

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  10,650

  3,730

  320

  All taxpayers

  21,300

  23,260

  1,030

  1 Based on numbers of tax units expected to pay tax in 1989–90.

  2 Married couples count as one unit.

  3 Average reductions are calculated by reference to the estimated number of tax units who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime, this number is some 1,200,000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1989–90, some 900,000 in this income range below £5,000 and 300,000 in the range £8,000–£ 10,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General how much has been paid each year at current prices in the county of South Yorkshire during the last 10 years, from the legal aid fund; how many Queen's counsel, junior counsel and solicitors have received such payments in each year; and if he will show in his answer what percentage this is of the national expenditure in such payments.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not available in the form requested. Regional data are available only by circuit or Crown court (in the case of criminal legal aid in the higher courts) and by legal aid area (in the case of all other forms of legal aid).

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General if he plans to prosecute Mr. Paul Foot and Mr. Colin Wallace for offences under the Official Secrets Act in relation to the publication of the book "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Consideration is being given to the contents of the book.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the South African Government urging the ending of the state of emergency.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made many representations calling on the South African Government to lift the state
  20
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 May 1989]: The information is given in the table. I regret that estimates for the bottom 1 per cent. and the bottom 5 per cent. of taxpayers are not available. Child tax allowances, which were being phased out in 1978–79 have been excluded from the comparison. The estimates are based on the projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  of emergency. Similar representations have been made jointly with our European partners, most recently on 20 April this year.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees and the lifting of the restrictions imposed on recently released detainees in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made frequent representations to the South African Government, urging that all those detained without trial should be charged or released unconditionally.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to veto EEC schemes which would aid the destruction of the tropical forests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We oppose schemes in developing countries where environmental concerns are likely to be dealt with inadequately or which have unacceptable environmental costs; however, we do not have a veto on Community aid projects as they are decided by qualified majority. We favour the use of aid available under the Community's programmes for measures to promote the sustainable management of tropical forests.

  Rain Forest Conservation
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those projects for which development aid has been provided to assist in rain forest conservation by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the amount of development aid provided by Her Majesty's Government to assist in rain forest conservation in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the amount of development aid per project, the nature of the project, and to whom aid has been provided by Her Majesty's Government to assist in rain forest conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Details of the Overseas Development Administration's activities to protect rain forests are given in a supplement to the December 1988 issue of "British Overseas Development", copies of which are in the Library.

  Identifiable expenditure on bilateral aid for all types of forestry for the calendar years 1983 to 1988 was:

  Expenditure by

  £ thousands

  Overseas Development on Administrati on

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Total

  1983

  2,103

  2,502

  4,605

  1984

  4,360

  1,968

  6,328

  1985

  5,825

  1,217

  7,042

  1986

  7,329

  7,973

  15,302

  1987

  6,449

  3,490

  9,939

  1988

  (not yet available)

  3,391

  Expenditure on training and some other technical co-operation in the forestry sector could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when assessments are made of the effects of providing aid for rain forest conservation programmes; what is the latest assessment; what consideration is being given to increasing the funding of such projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration's projects in the forestry sector are closely monitored by our project managers and specialist advisers. We have made no general evaluation of the impact of our rain forest conservation activities but we are nonetheless very much aware of the local and global importance of rain forests. As part of our forestry initiative we have identified more than 20 countries where there are good prospects for new British aid-funded activities to promote all types of forestry. We are increasing our funding for forestry research and are encouraging British charities to put forward more forestry projects for joint funding.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  Financial year

  Area sq ft (million)

  "Opportunity cost" rent £ million

  Contribution in lieu of rates £ million

  Club sub-scription for minor works and main-tenance £ million

  Administration charge in respect of (5) £ million

  Total £ million

  1983–84

  5·5

  24·1

  17·3

  5·3

  1·5

  48·1

  1984085

  4·6

  22·6

  17·0

  5·6

  1·3

  46·6

  1985–86

  4·4

  23·9

  16·1

  6·2

  1·5

  47·7

  22
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what cost benefit analysis has been undertaken of the most effective methods of assisting rain forest conservation by Her Majesty's Government; what conclusions were drawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration has not undertaken any general cost benefit analysis of methods of assisting rain forest conservation. We discuss with individual Governments their countries' needs and Britain's ability to help. Potential projects are subject to economic, social and environmental appraisal.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on comparative rain forest depletion in(a) Brazil and (b) other parts of the world.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest internationally comparable figures relate to 1976–80. Deforestation rates for tropical moist forest by region and worldwide were:

  Tropical closed moist forest

  Area lost (millions of hectares/year)

  Percentage of total area

  Africa

  1·20

  0·59

  Asia Pacific

  1·61

  0·61

  Latin America

  3·30

  0·54

  Worldwide

  6·11

  0·57

  Brazil's deforestation rate for all closed forest and open woodland was 2·32 million hectares or 0·5 per cent. per year. The Brazilian rate has increased during the 1980s but I am not aware of any agreed figures relating to rain forest alone.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates, of his Department in total, in each standard both in total per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Forth
  Information in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate cost. However, the Department has paid the PSA for accommodation and services under the property repayment system (PRS) since 1 April 1984. Under these arrangements, annual charges for the accommodation occupied have been as follows:
  23

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  Financial year

  Area sq ft (million)

  "Opportunity cost" rent £ million

  Contribution in lieu of rates £ million

  Club sub-scription for minor works and main-tenance £ million

  Administration charge in respect of (5) £ million

  Total £ million

  1986–87

  4·4

  26·6

  17·4

  6·2

  1·4

  51·5

  1987–88

  4·3

  30·2

  17·5

  5·1

  1·3

  54·1

  1988–89

  4·4

  35·1

  17·8

  8·0

  1·9

  62·8

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department follows standard civil service accountancy practices which enable Parliament to be satisfied that amounts of cash voted to be spent on certain activities have been so spent. Where assets such as plant and equipment are used in connection with fee-earning services, their written down value is recorded annually in memorandum trading accounts. Proposed expenditure on replacements is reflected in the annual estimates submitted to Parliament.

PRIME MINISTER

  British Intelligence (History)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 11 April,Official Report, column 442, what forms of publication of Sir Michael Howard's volume on the history of British intelligence are being considered.

  The Prime Minister
  Publication will be in the series of official histories of British intelligence in the second world war, of which volumes I to III have already been published.

  President Ortega
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations took place with the United States Government prior to her recent meeting with President Ortega of Nicaragua.

  The Prime Minister
  We have regular consultations with the United States Administration on a wide range of topics, including central America.

  Nicaragua and Nigeria
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if, during her recent meetings with(a) the President of Nicaragua and (b) the President of Nigeria, she raised the need to reduce the size of their respective armed forces;

  (2) if she discussed human rights in their respective countries with (a) the president of Nicaragua and (b) the president of Nigeria during their visits last week;

  (3) if she discussed democracy in their respective countries with (a) the president of Nicaragua and (b) the president of Nigeria during their visits last week.

  The Prime Minister
  President Ortega of Nicaragua was in the United Kingdom during a European tour to seek 24
  support for his actions following the commitments he made in the Esquipulas II and subsequent agreements in the central American peace process. The subjects of democracy, the rights of the opposition and the need to reduce the size of the armed forces were in consequence discussed extensively during my meeting with him.

  President Babangida of Nigeria is in the United Kingdom on a state visit. My meeting with him focused on United Kingdom-Nigerian relations, economic matters and regional issues. In addition, I discussed with him the transition process towards civilian rule now under way in Nigeria.

  Mr. Bernard Ingham
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report all the posts which come within the authority of Mr. Bernard Ingham as head of the Government information service.

  The Prime Minister
  The Head of the Government Information Service is responsible for the information officer management unit, comprising eight staff headed at grade 5. His wider duties in relation to the staff of the Government information service were set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 7 March at column 483.

  Overseas Aid (Malaysia)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the content of the exchanges that took place between the British and Malaysian Governments over a new overseas aid package, preceeding the signing of the memorandum of understanding on arms sales in September 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  There are continuous exchanges between the British and Malaysian Governments on aid, including offers of support for projects under the aid and trade provision. The Malaysian Government are well aware from these exchanges that we continue to be willing to support eligible projects from this source.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will place in the Library the memorandum of understanding and letters between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Malaysia relating to an overseas aid package discussed in the autumn of 1988;

  (2) what principles guided her discussions with the Malaysian Government prior to signing an agreement on an overseas aid package.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no memorandum of understanding between the British and Malaysian Governments on aid; offers of support are made for specific projects on a case-by-case basis.

  Malaysian State Airline
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister on what basis she intervened to secure the Malaysian state airline, MAS, additional landing rights in Britain earlier in the current year.

  The Prime Minister
  The recent air services negotiations with the Malaysian Government were conducted by officials of the Department of Transport under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the compensation terms offered to British Airways for its agreement to increased landing rights for the Malaysian state airline, MAS.

  The Prime Minister
  As is normal in air services negotiations, the agreement with Malaysia was based on a broadly balanced package of opportunities for the airlines of both countries. British Airways has the opportunity to operate additional services between the United Kingdom and Malaysia and to work together with MAS to develop traffic on the route.

  Arms Deal (Malaysia)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what risk has been created for the British Exchequer by the underwriting of the Malaysian arms deal by Government agencies; and if she will list the risk underwritten by each and every agency.

  The Prime Minister
  To the extent that ECGD becomes involved in supporting arms sales to Malaysia it will do so on the basis of its normal approach to the risks involved and its financial objective of operating its credit insurance schemes at no net cost to public funds. No other Government agencies will be involved in underwriting risks in connection with this business.

  Tornado Aircraft (Malaysia)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) over what period of time the payment for the Tornado aircraft, supplied to the Malaysian Government, is to be spread as specified in the memorandum of understanding signed in September 1988;

  (2) why Tornado aircraft were sold to the Royal Malaysian air force at a unit cost of almost £40 million; and what is the unit price for the same aircraft purchased by the RAF;

  (3) what knowledge she has of commissions paid in connection with the sale of Tornado aircraft to the Malaysian Government to (a) Prime Minister Maliativ Mohammed's Umno Bary party, (b) the Sultan of Johore, (c) the Sultan of Pahang and (d) to the ruler of Negri Sembilan.

  The Prime Minister
  Contracts have not yet been signed for the sale of Tornados to the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Such contracts would in any event be subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will now transfer Mr. Charles Powell from her office.
  26
  The Prime Minister
  No.

SCOTLAND

  Health and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1979 the total health and personal social services(a) current expenditure (gross) and (b) capital expenditure (net); and if he will give those totals adjusted by the HCHS pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information in the format requested is not fully available. As I have already indicated to the hon. Member in my letter of 30 March 1988, there is no index which relates to the movement of pay and prices within the Health Service in Scotland. The Department of Health maintains indices for pay and price movements in England but the composition of expenditure on hospital and community health services in Scotland —particularly the proportions accounted for by the various categories of staff costs—differs from that in England.

  Details of expenditure broken down into current (gross) and capital (net), are given in the following tables.

  Total expenditure on health and personal social services in Scotland

  Current (gross)

  Capital (net)

  £ million cash

  £ million cash

  11979–80

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1,537

  78

  1981–82

  1,726

  108

  1982–83

  1,865

  116

  1983–84

  1,995

  122

  1984–85

  2,135

  137

  1985–86

  2,264

  151

  1986–87

  2,426

  129

  1987–88

  2,651

  129

  21988–89

  2,912

  146

  1 Complete figures are not available.

  2 Provisional outturn.

  BMA (Negotiations)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who from his Department attended the negotiations between the Secretary of State for Health and the British Medical Association, the outcome of which was announced on 5 May.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Appropriate officials.

  Health Care (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his current plans to safeguard the provision of health care in rural areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposals in the Scottish new contract, published on 12 April (copies of which are available in the Library) were devised to take account of the special circumstances of Scottish doctors, and in particular those who practise in the less-populated areas. These proposals, which are reflected in the agreement announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 5 May, have been accepted by the profession's negotiators. This will ensure that patients in rural areas not only continue to receive the present high
  27
  standards of health care, but will also be able to take advantage of the additional services which their GPs are encouraged to provide under the new arrangements.

  GPs (List Sizes)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average general practitioner's list size that he is aiming to create if the proposals for Health Service reforms are implemented.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's proposals for Health Service reforms are not intended to create a national average list size for general medical practitioners in Scotland.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce in Scotland pilot schemes to test the proposed Health Service reforms before full implementation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall be looking for progress on implementing some aspects of the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm 555), notably medical audit, to be made as quickly as possible. On other aspects, for example, self-governing hospitals and GP practice budgets, the pace will be influenced by the voluntary nature of the processes.

  Asbestos Burning (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to monitor the effects on patients and staff at Liberton and Southfield hospitals as a result of the burning of asbestos at the protein fractionation centre in south Edinburgh.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no evidence that the incineration of filters containing asbestos emitted harmful asbestos fibres. The protein fractionation centre, in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive, is carefully examing the incineration procedure which was used until February. When the results of this examination are complete, it will be possible to assess whether there is a requirement to monitor the health of patients and staff at the local hospitals.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much material containing asbestos was burnt at Edinburgh's protein fractionation centre from 1979; and what steps were taken to evaluate the risk involved prior to the decision to incinerate materials.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The filters incinerated between 1979 and February 1989 (when incineration ceased) weighed about 15,500 kg and contained about 5,000 kg of asbestos. The protein fractionation centre has used asbestos filters in the manufacturing process for blood products since 1975. Used filters may contain potentially-harmful viral material and it is essential that the method of disposal effectively eliminates any hazards. In 1975, high temperature incineration in a multi-stage incinerator was adopted as the safest method of disposal of these and other biologically contaminated materials. This decision was taken in the wake of the serious hepatitis outbreak in Edinburgh (1969–71) and the recommendations of the subsequent Rosenheim report (1972) and was also supported by the local authority department of 28
  environmental health. In 1978 the World Health Organisation (WHO) promulgated the requirement that biological waste of this type must be incinerated or autoclaved.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has any plans to review relevant landlord and tenant legislation in Scotland in the light of the proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for changes in the control of public houses by the brewing industry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1927 and 1954 do not extend to Scotland, I am considering the implications for Scotland of the relevant proposals in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer (Cm 651) in consultation with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mathematics (Northern College)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions were given to the research team at Northern college dealing with the assessment of advancement programme on second round mathematics as to whether it could discuss with anyone the design and conduct of the 1988 research.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The contract with the Northern college is covered by the standard conditions governing the award of grants for projects in the assessment of achievement programme. The design and conduct of the 1988 assessment of achievement programme mathematics project was discussed with the project's steering committee and with the assessment of achievement programme central support unit at the Scottish Council for Research in Education. The research team described their work at the annual conference of the Scottish Educational Research Association in 1988.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether pupils in grant-aided schools were(a) tested in 1983 and (b) included by Northern college in the assessment of achievement programme 1988 sample survey of second round mathematics;

  (2) what discussions took place involving the steering group responsible for the research programme covered by the Northern college on changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988 before the interim report was requested.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on Friday 12 May 1989.

  Parent Teacher Council
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and education met with the Scottish Parent Teacher Council in November 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I addressed the annual conference of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council on 5 November 1988.

  Work-related Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total amount of money spent on work-related Government training schemes in each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive.

  Government work related training

  Total expenditure in Scotland by programme or scheme

  £ million

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Adult Training (including TOPS in 1984–85)

  n/a

  24·6

  17·0

  21·0

  20·1

  12·4

  New Job Training Scheme (scheme ended August 1988)

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  2·5

  2·1

  Employment Training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46·8

  Community Programme

  n/a

  70·5

  88·3

  103·7

  138·6

  74·5

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  n/a

  0·9

  1·1

  0·9

  0·9

  0·8

  Youth Training Scheme

  n/a

  75·1

  78·0

  83·9

  93·4

  102·7

  Notes:

  n/a—Not available.

  The figures given in the table are all provisional and rounded to the nearest £0·1 million. Expenditure was not disaggregated to a Scottish level until 1984–85.

  Advertising
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which advertising agency has been chosen to deal with the Scottish Office advertising campaign.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 7 March 1989, at column 483.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the sum to be spent on Scottish Office advertising in the coming year 1989–90.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 15 March 1989, at column 226.

  Smoking (Children)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the proportion of children in Scotland who smoke; and what information he has on comparable figures for other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1986 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys carried out, on behalf of the Health Departments, a third national survey of smoking among secondary school children (the 11–15 age group). Twelve per cent. of sampled pupils in Scotland said that they smoked regularly (at least one a week) and 5 per cent. occasionally (less than one a week). The equivalent figures for England and Wales were 10 per cent. and 5 per cent.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are being taken in Scotland to discourage young people from smoking following the Prime Minister's announcement on 25 January of a £2 million per year campaign to reduce the number of children who smoke over the next four years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The announcement of 25 January referred to a five-year teenage anti-smoking campaign for
  30
  Mr. Lang
  The information which is available is given in the following table:

  England and Wales funded by the Department of Health and Health Education Authority. In Scotland the Scottish health education group will spend some £280,000 on anti-smoking material and campaigns during the current financial year. The Scottish Committee for Action on Smoking and Health will receive grant-in-aid of £40,000 in 1989–90. Both organisations undertake anti-smoking initiatives directed at the young.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for the collection of information about(a) lead, (6) nitrates, and (c) other toxic chemicals in drinking water is Scotland; and what are the penalties for not properly discharging such responsibilities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the quality of public drinking water and related matters lies with the water authorities, the regional and islands councils. The district and islands councils carry out this function in relation to private water supplies. EC directive 80/778/EEC, the drinking water directive, requires regular monitoring of the quality of water intended for human consumption including the presence of lead, nitrates and other toxic substances. There are no specific penalties for failure to discharge these responsibilities.

  The Water Bill now before Parliament provides for regulations to be made which will define the duties of the water authorities, including monitoring and recording the quality of drinking water and making the information publicly available. Regulations are now being prepared for consultation.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the status of the Government's detailed proposals for changes to the general practitioners' terms of service and remunerations system in Scotland, in light of the agreement between the Secretary of State for Health and the British Medical Association announced on 5 May.
  31
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The agreement announced on 5 May was the outcome of negotiations to which my right hon. and learned Friend was party. I have welcomed it as dealing with all the major outstanding issues on the basis of the proposals I made to Scottish doctors on 12 April.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the decision announced on 5 May by the Secretary of State for Health that rural practices would be taken out of negotiations with the British Medical Association and referred to the central advisory committee on rural practice payments supersedes the announcements on rural practices contained in the new contract document published by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The central advisory committee's remit does not extend to Scotland. The Scottish rural practices fund committee has kept the equivalent Scottish scheme under regular review and that will continue to be the case. The new contract issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department makes it clear that the Government consider that payments from the fund are well targeted to meet the needs of rural doctors in Scotland.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road improvements have been carried

  Major trunk road schemes costing over £1 million

  Schemes completed May 1979 to April 1989

  £ million

  Scheme

  Region

  Cost

  A1

  Broxburn-Skateraw

  Lothian

  13·0

  A1

  Ayton Bypass

  Borders

  5·1

  A1

  Penmanshiel Improvement

  Borders

  3·4

  A1

  Tranent Bypass

  Lothian

  12·3

  A1

  Musselburgh Bypass

  Lothian

  16·9

  A7

  Canonbie Diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·4

  A7

  Synton to Mossend

  Borders

  1·3

  A74

  Johnstonebridge to Dinwoodie Lodge

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·8

  M74

  Draffan to Millbank I

  Strathclyde

  27·5

  M74

  Draffan to Millbank II

  Strathclyde

  9·2

  M74

  Draffan to Millbank III

  Strathclyde

  10·9

  A742

  Greenock to Inverkip

  Strathclyde

  27·7

  A75

  Carsluith Diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·5

  A75

  Collin Diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·8

  A75

  Gatehouse-of-Fleet Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9·0

  A75

  Creetown Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·2

  A75

  Bridge of Dee Diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·6

  A75

  Castle Douglas Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6·2

  A75

  Ringford Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·5

  A76

  Bargower

  Strathclyde

  3·0

  A77

  Bridgemill Diversion

  Strathclyde

  3·0

  A78

  Dundonald Camp-Monkton

  Strathclyde

  10·0

  M8

  Baillieston to Glasgow City Boundary

  Strathclyde

  10·7

  M8

  Starlaw Junction

  Lothian

  1·8

  A82

  Strathfillan Manse

  Central

  1·3

  A82

  Carnoch to Craigrannoch I

  Highland

  1·7

  A82

  Eos Eonan to Derrydarroch

  Central

  2·1

  A82

  Carnoch to Craigrannoch II

  Highland

  1·7

  A82

  Dubh Eas Diversion II

  Central

  1·1

  A82

  Auchentullich to Polnaberoch

  Strathclyde

  1·4

  A82

  Camus Nan Clais to Hollybank

  Strathclyde

  9·5

  32
  out in Scotland between May 1979 to April 1989; where these projects were undertaken; what was the source of the funding; how many new products are planned at present; and what is the total value of each project completed, in progress and planned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Information on trunk road schemes costing over £1 million is given in the following tables. Costs have not been provided for planned starts on an individual basis as these will vary depending on a scheme's actual year of start and other factors, but the total value of planned starts is estimated to be around £1,200 million. In addition to the schemes listed, a substantial number of schemes costing less than £1 million have been completed (to the value of approximately £70 million), are in progress or planned. On a small proportion of these a private sector contribution was made or is a possibility. It would require disproportionate effort to list all minor schemes completed since May 1979, in progress and planned.

  In the same period some £1,097 million has been spent on new construction and improvement, including structural maintenance, of local roads (this total includes a provisional figure for 1987–88 and an estimate for 1988–89). Information on specific local schemes is not held centrally. Provision for the current and two following years is planned to be about £140 million in each year.
  33

  Scheme

  Region

  Cost

  A82

  Arden to Auchentullich

  Strathclyde

  1·6

  A82

  Auchendennan to Arden

  Strathclyde

  1·5

  A83

  Shira Bridge

  Strathclyde

  1·5

  A830

  Annat to Drumsallie

  Highland

  1·7

  A830

  Mallaig to Kinsadel I

  Highland

  4·6

  A830

  Polnish to Lochailort

  Highland

  3·3

  A835

  Silverbridge to Gorstan

  Highland

  2·9

  A835

  Maryburgh to Brahan

  Highland

  4·3

  A835

  Contin Diversion

  Highland

  1·8

  M876

  North Broomage to Bowtrees

  Central

  17·0

  A9

  Calvine to Highland Regional Boundary

  Tayside

  25·4

  A9

  Crubenmore to North of Kingussie

  Highland

  6·0

  A9

  Avielochan to Slochd

  Highland

  6·3

  A9

  Dalmagarry to Bogbain

  Highland

  6·1

  A9

  Cromarty Bridge

  Highland

  5·7

  A9

  Blackford Bypass

  Tayside

  3·6

  A9

  Aviemore to Granish

  Highland

  4·9

  A9

  Ardullie to Foulis

  Highland

  1·6

  A9

  Pitlochry Bypass I

  Tayside

  15·1

  A9

  Pitlochry Bypass II

  Tayside

  6·5

  A9

  Charlestown to Tore

  Highland

  7·3

  A9

  Tore to Haryburgh

  Highland

  7·3

  A9

  Kessock Bridge

  Highland

  29·1

  A9

  North of Kingussie to South of Aviemore

  Highland

  8·9

  A9

  Regional Boundary to Drumochter Lodge

  Highland

  1·8

  A9

  Burnside to Broxburn

  Tayside

  3·8

  A9

  Killiecrankie to Calvine I

  Tayside

  17·1

  A9

  North of Guay to Tynereich

  Tayside

  5·7

  A9

  Auchterarder/Aberuthven Bypass

  Tayside

  7·5

  A9

  Evanton Bypass

  Highland

  5·7

  A9

  Perth Western Bypass

  Tayside

  4·4

  A9

  Dalreoch to Burnside

  Tayside

  9·7

  A9

  Killiecrankie to Calvine II

  Tayside

  26·6

  A9

  Alness Bypass

  Highland

  4·6

  A9

  Dornoch Northern Approach Roads

  Highland

  2·8

  A9

  Dornoch Southern Approach Roads

  Highland

  5·4

  A9

  Mound Bridges

  Highland

  3·7

  M9

  Longdye to Pirnhall

  Central

  10·2

  M90

  Arngask to Muirmont

  Tayside

  13·2

  A92

  Bourtreebush to Aberdeen City Boundary

  Grampian

  7·4

  A92

  Thornton Bypass I

  Fife

  3·4

  A92

  Thornton Bypass II

  Fife

  6·3

  A92

  Stonehaven Bypass

  Grampian

  14·5

  A92

  East Fife Regional Road I

  Fife

  11·6

  A92

  East Fife Regional Road II

  Fife

  7·3

  A92

  Murcar to Balmedie

  Grampian

  8·7

  A929

  Powrie Brae Improvement

  Tayside

  6·4

  A929

  Tealing to Tarbrax

  Tayside

  6·4

  A929

  Kingsway to Powrie

  Tayside

  4·0

  A94

  Parkford Improvement

  Tayside

  2·7

  A94

  Stracathro

  Tayside

  1·5

  A94

  Balnabreich to St. Ann's

  Tayside

  2·1

  A94

  Syde and Pert Improvement

  Grampian

  3·0

  A94

  Scotston to Candy

  Grampian

  7·0

  A94

  Laurencekirk Bypass

  Grampian

  7·9

  A94

  Forfar Bypass

  Tayside

  12·3

  A952

  Auchenten to Standinstones

  Grampian

  2·1

  A952

  Invernettie Diversion

  Grampian

  2·0

  A96

  Auchmill Road Improvement II

  Grampian

  1·5

  A96

  Elgin Relief Road

  Grampian

  3·4

  A96

  Tyrebagger Hill

  Grampian

  1·3

  A96

  West Adamston Improvement

  Grampian

  1·2

  A96

  Auldearn Bypass

  Highland

  1·9

  A96

  Bucksburn to Tyrebagger I

  Grampian

  4·2

  A96

  Forres Bypass

  Grampian

  4·7

  A972

  Kingsway Improvement I

  Tayside

  3·0

  34 35

  Scheme

  Region

  Cost

  A972

  Kingsway Improvement II

  Tayside

  1·3

  A972

  Kingsway Improvement III

  Tayside

  3·0

  Total 99 schemes

  597·9

  Notes:

  Funding source central Government unless otherwise stated.

  1 Blue Circle Cement.

  2 IBM (UK) contributed £1·5 million.

  All costs given are final scheme costs which have not subsequently been uprated to a common price basis.

  Major trunk road schemes costing over ·1 million

  Schemes in progress 1 April 1989

  £ million

  Scheme

  Region

  Cost

  A7

  North Middleton Bypass

  Lothian

  3·1

  A75

  Annan Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  17·0

  A75

  Glenluce Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6·8

  A75

  Dumfries Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  20·3

  A77

  Balsalloch-Balcreuchan

  Strathclyde

  3·1

  A82

  Luss-Camais Nan Clais

  Strathclyde

  10·4

  A835

  Garve Railway Bridge

  Highland

  1·5

  A9

  Dunblane Bypass

  Central

  18·7

  A9

  Dornoch Firth Bridge

  Highland

  12·0

  A9

  Dunbeath Bridge

  Highland

  4·9

  A92

  Ellon Bypass/Tipperty

  Grampian

  6·4

  A92

  East Fife Regional Road III and IV

  Fife

  20·0

  A94

  Candy to Stonehaven

  Grampian

  6·1

  A94

  Upper Northwaterbridge to Oatyhill

  Grampian

  6·4

  A94

  Parkford to Balnabreich

  Tayside

  10·0

  A96

  Inverurie Bypass

  Grampian

  10·5

  Total 16 Schemes

  157·2

  Notes:

  1. All schemes funded by central Government.

  2. All costs given are latest estimate of cost.

  Major trunk road schemes costing over £1 million Planned future starts

  Scheme

  Region

  A1

  Tower-Dunglass

  Borders

  A68

  Newtown St. Boswell's Bypass

  Borders

  A68

  Ancrum House/Harrietfield

  Borders

  A68

  Dalkeith Bypass

  Lothian

  A7

  Dalkeith Bypass

  Lothian

  A7

  Langholm Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A701

  Ae Bridge

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A701

  St. Ann's Bridge

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A701

  Locharbriggs to Amisfield

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A702

  Hillend Improvement

  Lothian

  A73

  Hyndford Bridge

  Strathclyde

  M74

  Scheme lengths yet to be determined

  31km in Strathclyde; 60km in Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  Carrutherstown to Hetland

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  Halfway House to Shennanton

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  Dervaird Lock to Barlae

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  Dunragit Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  The Glen Improvement

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A76

  Carronbridge Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A76

  Auldgirth to Whitespots

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A76

  Burnside to Allanton diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A76

  Kirkconnel/Sanquhar Bypass

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A76

  Cumnock/Auchinleck Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A76

  New Cumnock Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A76

  Mauchline Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A77

  Bennane Hill Bypass

  Strathclyde

  36

  Scheme

  Region

  A77

  Maybole Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A77

  Girvan Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A77

  Ardmillan

  Strathclyde

  A77

  South of Ballantrae to Auchencrosh

  Strathclyde

  A77

  Ayr Road Route

  Strathclyde

  A77

  Fenwick to B764

  Strathclyde

  A77

  B764 to Malletsheugh

  Strathclyde

  A78

  Ardrossan/Saltcoats Bypass

  Strathclyde

  M8

  St. James Interchange

  Strathclyde

  M8

  Baillieston to Shawhead

  Strathclyde

  M8

  Shawhead to Newhouse

  Strathclyde

  M8

  Newbridge to Edinburgh

  Lothian

  M80

  Stepps Bypass

  Strathclyde

  M80

  Stepps-Haggs

  Strathclyde

  A82

  Luss Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A82

  Hollybank to Tarbet

  Strathclyde

  A82

  Crianlarich Bypass

  Central

  A82

  Transport Centre Fort William to Kennels

  Highland

  A828

  Appin to Achnacone House

  Strathclyde

  A828

  Creagan Bridge Diversion

  Strathclyde

  A83

  Inveraray Bypass

  Strathclyde

  A830

  Mallaig to Kinsadel II

  Highland

  A830

  Kinloid to Kinsadel

  Highland

  A830

  Lock Nan Uamh to Polnish

  Highland

  A830

  Kinloid to Loch Nan Uamh

  Highland

  A835

  Contin to Garve

  Highland

  A87

  Dornie Bridge

  Highland

  37

  Scheme

  Region

  A9

  Broomhill to Logie Easter

  Highland

  A9

  Windyhouse to Borgue Bridge

  Highland

  A9

  Portgower to Greenpark

  Highland

  A9

  Berriedale

  Highland

  A9

  Crackaig to Culgower

  Highland

  A9

  Logie Easter to Garrick Bridge

  Highland

  A9

  Helmsdale to County Boundary

  Highland

  A9

  Brora Bypass

  Highland

  A9

  Greenloaning to Blackford

  Tayside

  A9

  Bridge of Allan Connnection

  Central

  A91

  Auchtermuchty Bypass

  Fife

  A92

  Preston to Balfarg

  Fife

  A92

  Bankhead Interchange

  Fife

  A92

  Rosyth Bypass

  Fife

  A92

  Balmedie to Tipperty

  Grampian

  A929

  Tarbrax to Forfar

  Tayside

  A94

  Stracathro Junction

  Tayside

  A94

  Brechin Bypass

  Tayside

  A952

  Inverugie to Balmoor

  Grampian

  A952

  Midmill

  Grampian

  A96

  Bucksburn Diversion

  Grampian

  A96

  Keith Bypass

  Grampian

  A96

  Lhanbryde Bypass

  Grampian

  A96

  Blackburn Bypass

  Grampian

  A96

  Kintore Bypass

  Grampian

  A96

  Inverarasay to Pitcaple

  Grampian

  A96

  Nairn Railway Bridge Replacement

  Highland

  A985

  Kincardine-on-Forth

  Fife

  Total 94 schemes costing an estimated £1,200 million.

  Note:

  It is expected that these schemes will be funded by central Government.

WALES

  Companies (Jobs)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since June 1987 he has intervened when companies operating in Wales have been bought up by companies from outside Wales, leading to a transfer of jobs away from Wales; and under which powers he acted in each case.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department is consulted by the Office of Fair Trading about merger cases that are being considered under the provisions of the 1973 Fair Trading Act and which involve companies that have an interest in Wales. Since June 1987 substantive representations have been made in relation to six cases so far as is known none resulted in a move of jobs from Wales.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1979 the numbers of staff expressed as a whole-time equivalent and as actual

  Average daily available beds

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Acute:

  Clwyd

  1,420·5

  1,434·4

  1,391·1

  1,400·8

  1,399·3

  1,371·2

  1,342·6

  1,337·2

  1,354·9

  East Dyfed

  761·8

  763·9

  740·9

  742·2

  741·6

  708·1

  690·1

  694·9

  692·9

  38
  full-time and part-time members in the categories (a) ancillary, (b) administration and clerical, (c) nurses and midwives and (d) professional and technical.

  Mr. Grist
  The requested information, which relates to 30 September each year, is given in the tables:

  Numbers of staff

  Whole time equivalents

  Full-time

  Part-time

  (a) Ancillary Staff—NHS Wales including WHCSA

  1979

  7,602

  7,307

  11,879

  1980

  7,593

  7,606

  11,939

  1981

  7,381

  7,728

  11,839

  1982

  7,240

  7,954

  11,784

  1983

  7,045

  7,897

  11,559

  1984

  6,498

  7,806

  10,964

  1985

  6,212

  8,009

  10,757

  1986

  5,797

  7,847

  10,210

  1987

  5,400

  7,864

  9,810

  1988

  4,942

  7,519

  9,117

  (b) Administrative and Clerical Staff—NHS Wales including WHCSA

  1979

  5,259

  1,584

  6,221

  1980

  5,376

  1,631

  6,279

  1981

  5,409

  1,676

  6,390

  1982

  5,437

  1,755

  6,437

  1983

  5,481

  1,779

  6,481

  1984

  5,545

  1,879

  6,626

  1985

  5,589

  2,067

  6,787

  1986

  5,600

  2,244

  6,924

  1987

  5,694

  2,375

  7,087

  1988

  5,909

  2,426

  7,279

  (c) Nursing and Midwifery Staff—NHS Wales including WHCSA

  11979

  16,275

  11,228

  23,031

  1980

  16,902

  11,792

  24,366

  1981

  17,946

  11,785

  25,362

  1982

  18,390

  11,956

  25,909

  1983

  18,583

  11,745

  25,981

  1984

  19,005

  11,751

  26,448

  1985

  19,486

  11,965

  27,01.4

  1986

  19,553

  12,123

  27,187

  1987

  19,892

  12,588

  27,764

  1988

  19,947

  12,936

  27,920

  (d) Professional and Technical staff—NHS Wales including WHCSA

  1979

  3,197

  963

  3,621

  1980

  3,370

  1,005

  3,737

  1981

  3,448

  1,059

  3,849

  1982

  3,615

  1,079

  4,018

  1983

  3,786

  1,078

  4,161

  1984

  3,904

  1,104

  4,466

  1985

  4,070

  1,152

  4,649

  1986

  4,123

  1,274

  4,771

  1987

  4,338

  1,316

  4,993

  1988

  4,384

  1,398

  5,111

  1 In 1979 standard contract hours for this staff group were 40 hours per week; this was reduced to 37·5 hours for 1980 and subsequent years.

  WHCSA—Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1979(a) the number of acute beds available and (b) the number of non-acute beds available in each district health authority and SHA; and if he will give the national total for each year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the table:
  39

  Average daily available beds

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Gwent

  1,517·9

  1,541·4

  1,548·9

  1,535·4

  1,515·1

  1,478·9

  1,466·2

  1,388·7

  1,388·0

  Gwynedd

  686·2

  687·8

  681·7

  683·6

  670·4

  685·6

  716·5

  718·7

  705·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,915·8

  1,886·6

  1,859·4

  1,842·4

  1,846·1

  1,844·1

  1,835·5

  1,813·5

  1,784·4

  Pembrokeshire

  245·7

  246·5

  248·7

  254·2

  264·1

  260·8

  261·1

  266·6

  258·0

  Powys

  292·2

  240·4

  226·8

  229·2

  241·5

  237·4

  237·7

  221·0

  220·3

  South Glamorgan

  1,864·9

  1,826·3

  1,818·4

  1,820·3

  1,864·1

  1,851·4

  1,839·3

  1,751·0

  1,753·7

  West Glamorgan

  1,428·3

  1,447·8

  1,455·1

  1,440·4

  1,450·0

  1,398·2

  1,421·3

  1,448·0

  1,399·9

  Wales

  10,133·3

  10,075·1

  9,971·0

  9,948·5

  9,992·2

  9,835·7

  9,810·3

  9,639·6

  9,557·2

  Non·Acute:1

  Clwyd

  1,632·0

  1,580·5

  1,600·3

  1,525·2

  1,551·0

  1,522·3

  1,469·0

  1,431·9

  1,335·8

  East Dyfed

  1,336·5

  1,300·2

  1,273·8

  1,057·9

  1,127·3

  1,092·0

  1,079·9

  1,063·3

  969·9

  Gwent

  2,364·7

  2,381·9

  2,286·9

  2,178·1

  2,176·3

  1,194·6

  2,153·2

  2,120·1

  2,113·1

  Gwynedd

  883·3

  880·5

  863·1

  845·6

  843·3

  856·9

  894·1

  911·2

  905·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,027·6

  2,977·8

  2,933·5

  2,883·7

  2,876·9

  2,904·8

  2,808·7

  2,684·9

  2,597·2

  Pembrokeshire

  220·6

  220·1

  212·0

  219·1

  211·3

  209·3

  206·3

  206·4

  198·1

  Powys

  973·3

  940·0

  933·8

  914·9

  846·8

  849·4

  819·5

  793·4

  779·8

  South Glamorgan

  1,718·7

  1,688·4

  1,702·5

  1,702·6

  1,703·0

  1,691·9

  1,707·1

  1,709·3

  1,644·2

  West Glamorgan

  1,166·0

  1,158·8

  1,162·9

  1,165·8

  1,146·9

  1,151·3

  1,181·9

  1,126·1

  1,110·3

  Wales

  13,322·7

  13,128·2

  12,968·8

  12,492·9

  12,482·8

  12,472·5

  12,319·7

  12,046·6

  11,653·4

  1 Includes geriatrics, younger disabled, obstetrics, GP maternity, mental illness, mental handicap, adolescent psychiatry, mental illness children, psychogeriatric and elderly mentally infirm.

  NHS (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of each capital project costing more than £1 million(a) actually under construction and (b) at the proposal or planning stage; if he will give the estimated date of completion for each project; and if he will break this list down by each DHA.

  Mr. Grist
  The details, as provided by DHAs in their 10-year capital programmes, are shown in the tables:

  (a) Captial Projects Under Construction

  District health authority and project

  Estimated completion date

  Clwyd

  1

  Chirk Community Hospital

  March 1990

  East Dyfed

  2

  Llanelli Hospital

  1989–89

  Gwent

  3

  Royal Gwent Hospital Development Scheme VI

  November 1989

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  Prince Charles Hospital Development Scheme

  August 1990

  South Glamorean

  5

  Llandough Hospital Obstetrics Unit

  May 1989

  6

  UHW Paediatric Cardiac Unit

  1991

  West Glamorgan

  7

  Tonna Hospital Development

  May 1991

  8

  Morriston Hospital Development (Phased)

  1992—93

  9

  Singleton Hospital West Ward Block

  1991

  10

  Singleton Hospital Physical Medicine Department

  1991

  40

  (b) Capital Projects at the Proposal or Planning Stage

  District health authority and project

  Estimated completion date

  Clwyd

  1

  Phase 2, Wrexham Maelor Hospital Development

  Part of 10 year development scheduled for completion 1999

  2

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—Mental Illness Unit

  1992–93

  3

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—Phase II Development (Obstetrics and Gynaecology)

  1992–93

  4

  Deeside Community Hospital—Phase I

  1991–92

  East Dyfed

  5

  Llanelli Hospital—Phase II

  1993–94

  Gwent

  6

  Ebbw Vale Community Hospital—Phase I

  1991

  7

  Royal Gwent Hospital—Scheme VII

  1993

  8

  Islwyn Community Hospital

  1994

  9

  Chepstow/Caldicot Community Hospital

  1997

  10

  Torfaen Community Hospital

  1995

  Gwynedd

  11

  West Mon Community Hospital

  1997

  12

  Ysbyty Gwynedd—Phase II Development

  1991–92

  13

  Druid/Cefni Hospital Amalgamation

  1991

  14

  Garth Angharad Interim Development

  1990–91

  15

  East Dwyfor/North Merionydd Community Hospital

  2001

  Mid Glamorgan

  16

  Aberdare Hospital Elderly Unit

  1990–91

  17

  Ystrad Fechan Community Hospital

  1991

  18

  East Glamorgan Hospital Geriatric Unit

  1991

  19

  Princess of Wales Hospital Development— Scheme II

  1995

  20

  Ystrad Mynach Hospital Development

  1989–90

  21

  Proposed Rationalisation of Hospital Services in Rhondda/Taff Ely. Proposals currently the subject of Secretary of State consideration

  Pembrokeshire

  22

  Withybush Hospital—Psychogeriatric Wards

  1991–92

  Powys

  23

  Brecon Hospital

  1992

  24

  Machynlleth Hospital—Phase I

  1990–91

  41

  District health authority and project

  Estimated completion date

  South Glamorgan

  25

  Radical Reorganisation of Hospital Services over next 10 years is proposed including the establishment of a new DGH and four neighbourhood hospitals. Proposals are currently the subject of Secretary of State consideration.

  2000

  26

  UHW—Replacement Energy Sources

  1991–92

  27

  Development of Catering Services

  1993–94

  West Glamorgan

  28

  Singleton Hospital—East Ward Block

  2001

  29

  Singleton Hospital Out-Patients Department

  1994–95

  30

  Singleton Hospital—Reorganisation of Operating Department

  1993–94

  31

  Singleton Hospital—Staff Residences

  1991–92

  32

  Morriston Hospital—Scheme 4 (Burns and Plastics and Associated Works)

  1993

  33

  Tonna Hospital Development

  1991–92

  34

  Neath/Port Talbot DGH

  1999

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each year since 1979 the total health and personal social services(a) current expenditure (gross) and (b) capital expenditure (net); and if he will give those totals adjusted by the HCHS pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total Health and Personal Social Services

  £ million

  Current expenditure (gross)

  Capital expenditure (net)

  1978–79

  460·1

  27·4

  1979–80

  544·3

  29·9

  1980–81

  692·8

  37·5

  1981–82

  779·2

  45·8

  1982–83

  856·5

  50·5

  1983–84

  913·3

  54·2

  1984–85

  979·9

  58·5

  1985–86

  1,047·6

  59·5

  1986–87

  1,124·6

  66·7

  1987–88

  1,252·7

  69·8

  1988–89

  1,403·3

  64·8

  Separate pay and price factors are not maintained for Wales. The hospital and community health services pay and price deflator, maintained for England by the Department of Health, is an index of inflationary pressures on current expenditure in the hospital and community health services alone. It would be inappropriate therefore to apply this index to total health and personal social services expenditure.

  Standard Business Rate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the level of the standard business rate which will come into force in Wales in April 1990.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have made no such estimate. It will not be possible to make an estimate until I have the results of the revaluation of non-domestic property.

  European Tourist Year
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Wales tourist board will have a direct involvement in developing the European Tourism Year 1990.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Yes. The Wales tourist board is represented on both the United Kingdom steering committee and the United Kingdom national examining committee.

  Work-related Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total amount of money spent on work-related Government training schemes in each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The following figures represent expenditure by the Manpower Services and the Training Commission on work-related Government training programmes in Wales in the relevant financial years. Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for accounting for Government expenditure. This year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  £ millions

  1983–84

  44·2

  1984–85

  58·1

  1985–86

  55·8

  1986–87

  71·5

  1987–88

  79·6

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of expenditure in real terms in(a) Wales and (b) Gwent regional health authority annually since 1979 indicating what proportion of that expenditure relates to (i) wage inflation, (ii) debt charges, and (iii) committed capital expenditure.

  Mr. Grist
  It is assumed the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare expenditure in real terms by Gwent district health authority with that by all health authorities in Wales since 1979–80. The information is given in the table.

  £000

  Gwent DHA

  Wales

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  1979–80

  88,997

  4,146

  579,298

  43,213

  1980–81

  97,485

  1,736

  631,042

  48,132

  1981–82

  98,339

  3,979

  639,077

  53,673

  1982–83

  100,031

  4,864

  648,467

  59,995

  1983–84

  101,612

  4,348

  659,229

  60,630

  1984–85

  102,224

  4,696

  667,978

  59,171

  1985–86

  101,574

  4,374

  674,539

  58,822

  1986–87

  105,146

  7,320

  704,376

  63,765

  1987–88

  109,122

  6,910

  742,014

  60,570

  Note: All figures are expressed at 1987–88 outturn prices. 1987–88 is the latest year for which information is available.

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  Health authorities' accounts do not disaggregate outturn expenditure on salaries and wages between sums attributable to pay inflation and sums attributable to changes in the numbers and mix of staffing. Health authorities do not raise finance from private sources and are therefore not subject to debt charges.

  Hospital Wards
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital wards are not in use in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport due to staff shortages.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in (i) Newport (ii) Gwent and (iii) Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information is given in the table. Information on medical and dental staff is not centrally available below district health authority level. Nursing and midwifery staff figures are not available below district health authority level prior to 1980.

  Medical and dental staff1

  Nursing and midwifery staff1 2 3 4

  Gwent

  Wales

  Newport

  Gwent

  Wales

  1979

  318

  2,181

  n/a

  3,663

  23,031

  1980

  321

  2,234

  1,018

  3,964

  24,366

  1981

  330

  2,308

  1,096

  4,061

  25,362

  1982

  338

  2,353

  1,107

  4,141

  25,909

  1983

  342

  2,404

  1,272

  4,221

  25,981

  1984

  340

  2,420

  1,329

  4,312

  26,448

  1985

  340

  2,465

  1,309

  4,351

  27,014

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery

  General surgery

  Ear, nose and throat

  Ophthalmology

  1979

  1988

  1979

  1988

  1979

  1988

  1979

  1988

  (a) In-patient waiting list as at 31 March

  Gwent

  1,396

  1,859

  1,677

  1,749

  2,064

  840

  650

  767

  Newport1

  812

  1,751

  1,338

  601

  1,216

  840

  435

  767

  Clwyd

  493

  879

  663

  1,193

  314

  1,756

  708

  284

  East Dyfed

  637

  575

  620

  1,093

  348

  812

  416

  418

  Gwynedd

  461

  163

  575

  831

  247

  355

  486

  390

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,709

  1,163

  2,780

  2,188

  2,266

  1,790

  3,147

  359

  Pembrokeshire

  207

  908

  306

  1,572

  401

  —

  243

  —

  Powys

  20

  —

  19

  —

  12

  —

  13

  —

  South Glamorgan

  1,697

  1,877

  571

  1,397

  1,968

  957

  1,244

  552

  West Glamorgan

  3,454

  1,224

  2,762

  1,231

  3,978

  651

  197

  738

  (b) Day-case waiting list as at 31 March

  Gwent

  103

  67

  185

  £99

  —

  11

  121

  160

  Newport1

  —

  55

  103

  6

  —

  11

  121

  160

  Clwyd

  156

  111

  410

  642

  5

  51

  —

  50

  East Dyfed2

  124

  48

  180

  161

  4

  13

  —

  20

  Gwynedd

  43

  48

  338

  286

  —

  3

  70

  117

  Mid Glamorgan

  270

  —

  331

  100

  10

  —

  17

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  462

  —

  212

  —

  50

  —

  13

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan3

  —

  113

  29

  500

  —

  55

  —

  25

  West Glamorgan

  114

  82

  41

  132

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1 People waiting for treatment at Royal Gwent and St. Woolos hospitals.

  2 Includes Pembrokeshire for 1979.

  3 Excludes figures for the University hospital of Wales.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he is proposing to reduce the hospital waiting lists in Gwent.

  Mr. Grist
  In order to assist Gwent health authority in reducing hospital waiting times in its district the Welsh Office has offered £220,000 to the authority for the continuation of the initiative in orthopaedics during the current financial year. In addition, Welsh Office officials will be meeting representatives of health authorities,
  44

  Medical and dental staff1

  Nursing and midwifery staff1 2 3 4

  Gwent

  Wales

  Newport

  Gwent

  Wales

  1986

  345

  2,470

  1,316

  4,354

  27,187

  1987

  5359

  52,488

  1,364

  4,337

  27,764

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  1,391

  4,310

  27,918

  n/a—Not available.

  1 NHS directly employed staff. Whole-time equivalents in post as at 30 September.

  2 No adjustment has been made for the change in working hours (from 40 to 37½ hours per week) during 1980.

  3 Based on NHS pay records for staff paid at the Royal Gwent, St. Woolos and Allt-yr-yn hospitals and at community pay units in Newport. It is not possible to adjust for staff paid at one unit working partly at another.

  4 Learners are excluded because they are mostly paid (ie recorded) at one central point and it is hence not possible to break doen their numbers by hospital.

  5 Provisional.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for waiting lists in(a) Gwent and (b) Newport for (i) trauma, (ii) orthopaedic, (iii) general surgery and (iv) eye, ear and throat operations also in comparison with the other counties in Wales and in comparison with 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Available information on in-patient and day case waiting lists is given in the table:

  including Gwent, to discuss the establishment of treatment centres as envisaged in the Welsh chapter of the White Paper "Working For Patients".

  Hospitals (Gwent)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to allocate more funds to hospitals in Gwent.
  45
  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend announced in January allocations for the current financial year. The authority's initial revenue cash allocation for 1989–90 is £127·4 million, an increase of 5·8 per cent. over last year; in addition the authority is expected to achieve cost improvements and generate additional income equivalent to a further 1·3 per cent. of its recurrent revenue allocation. The authority's capital allocation is £7·3 million, an increase of nearly 43 per cent. over 1988–89.

  Community Charge (Injunction)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's publications of the High Court decision to grant a temporary injunction to Greenwich borough council in respect of a Department of Environment leaflet on the poll tax; and whether he will make it his policy to delay the publication or distribution of any Welsh Office document on the poll tax pending a full hearing of the case.

  £ thousands

  1981–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–881

  Clwyd

  —

  2·6

  1·7

  5·2

  -2·9

  9·4

  East Dyfed

  —

  0·7

  1·4

  6·6

  2·0

  0·9

  Gwent

  —

  4·2

  6·3

  19·7

  9·3

  6·6

  Gwynedd

  —

  4·8

  2·9

  12·0

  2·4

  15·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  2·5

  0·6

  0·0

  —

  0·2

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  1·3

  3·8

  0·1

  2·0

  Powys

  —

  0·3

  0·6

  0·4

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  1·4

  16·8

  29·8

  17·6

  -0·4

  28·4

  West Glamorgan

  0·4

  7·4

  4·4

  -0·1

  0·1

  4·1

  Wales

  1·8

  39·3

  49·0

  65·2

  10·6

  67·0

  1 Latest year for which the information is available·

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Advertising air time purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years is commercially confidential.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Authorities (Fords)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the responsibility of water authorities or other bodies for the maintenance of fords.

  Mr. Howard
  Water authorities have no responsibility for the maintenance of fords. Where a ford has been dedicated as a highway maintainable at public expense, responsibility for its maintenance rests with the highway authority.

  Advertising
  Mr Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.
  46
  Mr. Grist
  The decision by the High Court relates solely to the leaflet produced by the Department of the Environemnt entitled "The Community Charge (the so-called Poll Tax) How It Will Work For You".

  The bilingual leaflet "Your Guide to the Community Charge", which is being distributed in Wales, is separate and different. I have no plans to halt its distribution.

  Overseas Residents
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been obtained from overseas residents in total, and in each of the health authorities, since the inception of the charging scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  The income received from overseas visitors by district health authorities in Wales since the inception of the charging scheme on 1 October 1982 has been as follows:

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department advertised on commercial television as follows:—in September 1984 at a total cost of £516,000 (including production charges)
  —in April 1989 at a total cost of £1 million (including production charges)

  No television advertising appeared between 1985 and 1988. The sums paid to individual stations is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave earlier today because the sums paid to individual stations is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will pay the water bill incurred by the fire brigade putting out(a) domestic and (b) industrial fires once the water authorities are privatised.

  Mr. Howard
  Clause 79 of the Water Bill will prohibit water undertakers from charging for water taken from a public hydrant or from private premises for fire fighting purposes.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates, of his Department in total in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Ridley
  Information in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate cost. However, central DOE has paid the PSA for accommodation and services under the property repayment system (PRS) since 1 April 1984. Under these arrangements, annual charges for the accommodation occupied have been as follows:

  Figures in brackets are costs per square foot

  Year

  Rent and rates

  Total cost

  £ million

  £

  £ million

  £

  1984–85

  22·9

  (9·8)

  26·7

  (11·4)

  1985–86

  22·5

  (10·1)

  26·7

  (12·0)

  1986–87

  18·2

  (8·4)

  22·5

  (10·4)

  1987–88

  19·3

  (8·7)

  23·9

  (10·7)

  1988–89

  19·7

  (8·8)

  25·7

  (11·6)

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department of the Environment operates a cash-based system which enables Parliament to be satisfied that the amounts of cash voted to be spent on activities have been so spent. There has, therefore, been no overall need to maintain comprehensive up to date valuations of plant and equipment, the purchase cost of which is tightly controlled through the cash accounting system.

  Rights of Way
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had to make a legal definition of the entire rights of way network legally defined by the year 2000.

  Mr. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of representations have been received supporting the Countryside Commission's objective that the rights of way network should be legally defined, properly maintained and well publicised by the end of the century.

  Council Housing (Rents)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what effect ring fencing of the housing revenue account will have on the ability of councils(a) to set rents in their areas and (b) to control future rent rises; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he proposes to reduce housing subsidy to an authority which does not increase rents in line with Government policy; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he expects local authorities in deficit on the housing revenue account to increase rents twice in the year of account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the new regime, my right hon. Friend will set an annual guideline rent increase for each local 48
  authority. Housing revenue account subsidy will be paid on the assumption, among other things, that the authority increases rent in accordance with the guideline. Subsidy for the year will not be reduced if the authority raises rents by a different amount. Local authorities will be free to set their own rents so long as they do not budget to make a deficit on their housing revenue account for any year. If, despite this, it appears during the year that a deficit is likely to arise on the account, the authority will be required to take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to avoid that outcome. In such a case it will be for the authority to decide whether a rent increase is necessary.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has for the expenditure by his Department on the further consultation period for the proposed HAT in Sunderland, from the publication of the consultant's report to the ballot of tenants.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has appointed a consortium led by Peat Marwick McLintock to discuss with local people the proposal for a trust in Sunderland. The cost of the contract will remain commercially confidential until it has been completed. No estimates have yet been made of the costs of a ballot which would be arranged by the Electoral Reform Society.

  Assisted Private Purchase Schemes
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to grant the London borough of Croydon's application to administer an assisted private purchase scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department wrote to approve one scheme on 8 May, and will shortly be writing about two more.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Ministers have delivered the leaflet "The Community Charge: The So-Called Poll Tax: How It Will Work For You" to private homes; and in what places.

  Mr. Gummer
  Two Ministers delivered the leaflet to homes. I delivered it in Westminster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) in Kirkstall, Leeds.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the leaflets on the community charge/poll tax delivered on the morning of Wednesday 10 May to homes in Fife terrace, London N1, by the Post Office were delivered on the instructions of his Department.

  Mr. John Gummer
  The Post Office was contracted by the Central Office of Information, on the instructions of the Department of the Environment, to deliver a copy of the leaflet to every household in England. However, at approximately 6.30 pm on Tuesday 9 May the Post Office was instructed to discontinue delivery.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects on pollution levels of the granting to water authorities of lower discharge consents under the Water Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  On 7 December I announced a capital programme costing around £1 billion to bring substandard sewage treatment works into compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992. In line with established practice, water authorities may apply for time-limited discharge consents for these works to regularise current performance while improvements take place. The remedial programme is expected to lead to significant improvements in river quality and consent conditions no less stringent than those that currently apply will be reintroduced once improvements are completed.

  In the interim, and as an additional environmental safeguard, the time-limited consents will incorporate new upper-tier conditions defining absolute maximum limits for specified pollutants.

  The Water Bill will strengthen the framework for water pollution control. It will be for the new National Rivers Authority (NRA) to determine discharge consents and, in doing so, it will have a duty to achieve the statutory quality objectives to be set for all rivers.

  Shopping Developments (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environent when he intends to announce his decision about planning applications for out-of-town shopping developments in Greater Manchester; and to which organisation and individuals this information has already been given by Ministers.

  Mr. Chope
  The decisions on these applications will be announced as soon as possible. A number of organisations and individuals, particularly applicants and their agents, have inquired about the expected decision date, but no details of inquirers have been recorded.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lawyers are retained by his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department currently has 44 lawyers in post, including three part-timers.

  Property Valuation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department or its agencies last carried out a valuation of its property assets; what the total property portfolio is worth in each standard region; and what charges for asset replacement are made.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The PSA is responsible for the management of the civil estate vested in me and it is currently undertaking a valuation of the estate which will include an asset valuation.

  This major exercise, which is being carried out by independent valuers, will not be completed until the end of the year.

  Neither the depreciation of assets, nor the cost of replacing assets, are directly provided for in the existing annual vote structure.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 660, to the hon. Member for Copeland, he will list for each authority the nature of the complaints of alleged anti-competitive practices and the individual or organisation responsible for making the complaint.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: No. I do not propose to give such information about individual authorities while allegations are being investigated. Nor do I consider it relevant or necessary to name those making complaints. I do, however, intend to inform the House when I have used my powers of sanction under paragraph I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Dredged Aggregates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the principal areas of dredging for aggregates.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply. The principal areas licensed by the Crown Estate Office for the purpose of dredging aggregates are as follows:

  The Bristol Channel

  Off Great Yarmouth

  The mouth of the Humber

  The mouth of the Thames

  Around the Isle of Wight.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Short Brothers
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to improve(a) the security fence and (b) general security at the missile production facility belonging to Short's in Belfast.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: Since the theft in October last year from a Short's factory, there has been a review of security arrangements at all Short's establishments. A number of additional security measures, both physical and procedural, either have already been, or are being, implemented following that review. Security arrangements at all establishments belonging to Short's are the primary responsibility of the company, though my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State maintains, given his overall responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, a close interest in such matters.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be in a position to announce the new owner of Short Brothers plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: I have now received detailed proposals from Fokker/GEC and Bombardier. The two proposals are different in nature but both offer considerable opportunities for Short's. It will take some time to evaluate them fully, but I am conscious of the need to end any uncertainty about the future of the company as soon as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Energy Action
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the number of trainees undertaking community energy action work in draught-proofing and loft insulation to equal the number so engaged under the community programme in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No direct comparison can be made between the number of trainees in a particular occupational area under employment training and the number of participants that were engaged in such work under the community programme. The number of trainees in draughtproofing and loft insulation is determined by the demand for training in these and related occupational skills.

  High Moor Pit (Inquiry)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his response to the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the fall of roof which occurred at High Moor pit on 13 January.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the comprehensive report by British Coal and its recommendations, which were agreed by all sides of industry, the trade unions and by the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate. I also understand that the recommendations are in the process of being implemented.

  Industrial Democracy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, prior to the operation of the European single market, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that closer co-operation through industrial democracy exists between the organised work force and management in British industry.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government will continue to encourage voluntary systems for the involvement of all employees in the work of their companies.

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the ethnic background data for YTS trainees as at(a) March and (b) October 1988 and (c) March 1989, separately, for each youth training scheme operating in each of the Training Agency areas of Greater London.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested has been sent to the hon. Member and a copy placed in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the ethnic data for YTS trainees as at March and October 1988 and March 1989, separately for each YTS, both local and large company unit, operating in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested has been sent to the hon. Member and a copy placed in the Library.

  Industrial Earnings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of industrial workers in the north-west earn less than average industrial earnings.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information, for April 1988, relates to full-time manual employees in the north-west, on adult rates of pay. The estimated percentage is about 58 per cent., broadly similar to the figure for Great Britain as a whole.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company;

  (2) how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on TV expenditure in the form requested is not held by my Department; nor is it available centrally through the Central Office of Information and can be supplied only at a disproportionate cost. It is also commercially confidential.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the removal of wages council legal protection for young people has had on low pay.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The removal of wages council minima has enabled employers to offer, and young people to accept, jobs at rates which would previously have been unlawful, and there is evidence that this has resulted in increased job opportunities for those under 21. It is not possible to measure the effect of this greater flexibility on pay levels, but there has been no general reduction in the earnings of young people in wages council trades. These have continued to increase in real terms.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people who receive a reduced unemployment benefit after finishing the enterprise allowance scheme drop their claims on its reference to a tribunal; and what proportion of those who do appear win their cases.

  Mr. Lee
  From October 1987 reduced rate unemployment benefit was abolished. Claimants whose unemployment benefit is disallowed by the adjudicating authorities following a period on the enterprise allowance scheme are not separately identified from other claimants whose benefit is disallowed. It is not possible, therefore, to provide the information requested.

  European Tourism Year
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the representatives of the United Kingdom on the steering committee of the European Tourism Year 1990.

  Mr. Lee
  Each member state is entitled to two representatives on the steering committee. The United
  53
  Kingdom representatives are Mr. Michael Medlicott, chief executive of the British Tourist Authority and Mrs. Julie Thakker, an official in the tourism branch of my Department.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current estimates of employees in employment at September 1987, December 1987, September 1988 and December 1988 by the following industry grouping(a) agriculture, forestry, fishing, (b) energy and water, (c) manufacturing, (d) construction, and (e) services by standard Great Britain region including Greater London; and in the same region how many employees in employment were women working part time.

  Mr. Lee
  The information appears in table 1.5 of the May 1989 edition of Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews were conducted between December 1988 and March 1989 inclusive for each employment service region.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of restart interviews conducted in each employment service region between December 1988 and March 1989 is shown in the table:

  Region

  Number of interviews

  Northern Region

  55,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  76,000

  East Midlands and Eastern

  64,000

  London and South East

  169,000

  South West

  37,000

  Wales

  47,000

  West Midlands

  95,000

  North West

  118,000

  Scotland

  108,000

  Great Britain

  769,000

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, if a restart counseller refers a claimant to an adjudication officer because of what the claimant has written in their RR6 or said during the interview, the counsellor has to tell the claimant; whether the claimant can ask to see what the restart counsellor has said in the RR3; and whether the claimant is entitled to a copy of the RR3 to help them understand their position and, if necessary, correct any false information contained therein.

  Mr. Lee
  Restart counsellors do not refer claimants direct to the adjudication authorities. If a doubt arises about a claimant's availability for work the case is passed to the benefit office for referral to the adjudication officer if that is appropriate. Counsellors are instructed to tell claimants about the action that has been taken. Claimants can ask to see what is written on form RR3 and can be given a copy on request.

  Work Trials
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether those long-term unemployed 54
  claimants who participate in work trials on employers' premises under the pilot job interview guarantee scheme will be designated on the same ways as ET and YTS trainees for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and what rights they will have if they are discriminated against by an employer or they experience an accident at work.

  Mr. Lee
  Employers providing work trials will be required by contract with my Department to treat participants in the same way as their employees for the purpose of health and safety. It is also our intention that participants will be entitled to receive payments under the analogous industrial injuries scheme.

  In providing the trial period, employers will be required by contract to ensure that no discrimination takes place which is rendered unlawful by either the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976.

  The procedure covering ET and YTS trainees, to which the hon. Member refers, is not applicable to work trial participants.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether those long-term unemployed claimants who participate in work trials on employers' premises under the pilot job interview guarantee scheme will be able to receive the same discretionary increases to their income without it being deducted from their benefit, as do those claimants who participate in employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Participants in work trials will be reimbursed by the Department of Employment for travel and midday meal expenses incurred in undertaking the trial, up to maximum limits. These payments will not affect their benefit, although any other payments made in respect of the work trial could do so.

  British Aerospace (Bracknell)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many jobs will be lost in Bracknell as a result of the closure of the British Aerospace site, and as to the percentage of the economically active population of Bracknell this represents.

  Mr. Lee
  I have seen press reports that about 2,000 jobs will be lost at the Bracknell site as a result of this closure. There is no up-to-date estimate of the economically active population of Bracknell.

  Picketing
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to review the law on picketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", published on 20 March, states that the Government propose no change to the law on picketing.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many projects in Scotland were either wholly or partly funded by the European Community social fund since 1979; what was the nature of these projects; and what was the total value of the grants.
  55
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Information on which category or recommendation for projects funded in Scotland under the European social fund (ESF) is readily available only for the period since 1987. The information is as follows:

  Full priority

  Part priority

  1987

  173

  59

  1988

  215

  15

  1989

  182

  119

  All applications to the European social fund are for projects of vocational training or job creation measures. Data on the regional allocation of ESF have been collected only since 1985. The total value of grants to Scotland, excluding central Government schemes, for the period 1985–1988 is as follows:

  £

  1985

  17,215,503

  1986

  14,072,865

  1987

  16,774,846

  1988

  18,886,175

  The amount allocated in 1989 has yet to be confirmed by the European Commission.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Pacific, African and south American rain forest holocaust is taken account of in the Community forestry programme.

  Mr. Ryder
  One of the main aims of the proposed forestry action programme is to reduce the Community's dependence on timber imports, thus making some contribution to the range of measures that will be needed to protect the tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which sources he relies for evidence on the absence of a link between the north American drought and the longer-term effects of botanical holocaust in the rain forests in central and south America.

  Mr. Ryder
  In conversation with scientists, I have gained the impression that there is no proof of a link between the north American drought this year and removal of the rain forests in central and south America. I cannot disprove the hypothesis of a link but nor am I aware that supporters of the hypothesis can prove that there is such a link.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates, of his Department in total, in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate cost. However, the accommodation charge (which includes an 56
  opportunity cost rent, contribution in lieu of rates, plus an element to cover maintenance and minor works) paid to PSA in respect of properties on the civil estate occupied by my Department, and the area of occupation, in each of the past five financial years are as follows:

  Accommodation charge

  Area of occupation

  (£'000s)

  ('000 square feet)

  1984–85

  31,036

  8,308

  1985–86

  32,596

  8,161

  1986–87

  30,128

  7,764

  1987–88

  30,650

  7,760

  1988–89

  31,664

  6,509

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The purchasing system for plant and equipment operated by my Department is aimed at securing value for money and ensuring that the money is spent in accordance with Parliament's wishes. Periodic revaluations of plant and equipment are not required and do not feature in my Department's accounts. An estimate of replacement costs could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce routine testing of the brains of all cows for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will consider banning the sale for human consumption of brains, thymus and spleen from all cull cows;

  (2) what advice he has been given concerning health hazards arising from meat products from bovine spongifrom encephalopathy infected cattle being sold for human consumption.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on 27 February at columns 89–91.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what level in his Department's regional structure the number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy is identified at monitored markets and slaughter houses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Cases are identified at divisional level.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cull cattle were slaughtered in the United Kingdom in 1988; and of those how many were slaughtered at EEC export approved slaughterhouses.
  57
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We estimate that in 1988 of 670,000 cows and adult bulls were slaughtered in the United Kingdom. 470,000 of them at EC-approved abbatoirs.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist for the 58
  veterinary inspection ante-mortem of animals at (a) EEC export approved slaughterhouses and (b) non EEC export approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 April 1989, which appeared in column 695 of Hansard dated 14 April 1989.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of fish landed and sold at Lowestoft, Hull, Grimsby, Peterhead and Aberdeen in the last three months for which figures are available has come from Icelandic-registered boats; and what has been the average daily price of plaice in these ports over this time.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The percentage of all fish landed at Hull and Grimsby which was landed by Icelandic-registered fishing vessels, based on provisional landing statistics, was as follows:

  1989

  February

  March

  April

  Hull

  30

  64

  39

  Grimsby

  21

  49

  26

  There were no recorded landings by Icelandic-registered fishing vessels at Aberdeen, Peterhead or Lowestoft during this period.

  The average daily price of plaice in £ per tonne, based on provisional landings statistics, was as follows:

  1989

  February

  March

  April

  Hull

  944

  733

  1,134

  Grimsby

  790

  822

  636

  Lowestoft

  837

  864

  864

  Aberdeen

  1,210

  842

  704

  Peterhead

  844

  615

  521

  Source:

  MAFF: Fisheries Statistical Retrieval System.

  DAFS: Fish Landings Data Base.

  Icelandic Fish
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next Council of Ministers meetings the matter of Icelandic fish sold below market price in European ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We monitor offer prices of third country fish imported into the United Kingdom against the relevant Community reference prices. I can assure my hon. Friend that where we find low-priced imports justifying action within the terms of the Community's fish marketing regime, I shall raise the matter swiftly with the Commission and if necessary with my fellow Fisheries Ministers in the Community.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the import of Icelandic fish into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the future of North sea ports which handle Icelandic fish currently and after 1992.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Protocol 6 of the general trade agreement between the European Community and Iceland provides for certain fish products access to the Community at preferential rates of duty, subject in the case of frozen fish fillets to observance by Iceland of the Community's reference price. Further, the Community's reference price system provides for the Commission to take action to prevent disruption of the Community market if significant 60
  quantities of third country imports enter the Community below the appropriate reference price on three consecutive days.

  The Icelandic fish trade into North sea ports is long established. I have no knowledge that this will change either before or after 1992.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet with his counterpart in Iceland to discuss the sale of Icelandic fish in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans for a meeting.

  ADAS
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is proposing to take following the Bailey review of Agricultural Development Advisory Service laboratories in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March 1989 at column 515.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the financial basis for his decision to reduce the number of Agricultural Development Advisory Service laboratories;

  (2) which Agricultural Development Advisory Service laboratories and experimental farms in England and Wales he proposes to close in the current year and in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Ryder
  I cannot add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March 1989 at column 515.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of cuts in agricultural research and development in the work of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service farms at Trawsgoed and Pwllpeirian.

  Mr. Ryder
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March 1989 at column 515 my right hon. Friend the Minister indicated that decisions on the future of ADAS research and development facilities depend on the industry's decisions on the work it is prepared to fund.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the regional analytical chemistry laboratories at Trawsgoed.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 21 March 1989 at column 515 that the analytical chemistry laboratory at Trawsgoed would be closed in 1990–91 and that the Welsh Office is considering the possibility of alternative uses of the facility.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the employment consequences of closing the laboratories at Trawsgoed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 11 May 1989 at columns 482–83.
  61
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the revenue targets set for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in Wales for the last two years and the extent to which those targets have been met.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 9 May 1989 at column 372.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects currently undertaken at Pwllpeirian experimental farm.

  Mr. Ryder
  Work on the following five projects is currently being undertaken at Pwllpeirian experimental husbandry farm as a contribution to a national programme of research and development:

  Reproduction and rearing of beef cattle

  Reproduction, rearing and the nutrition of the ewe and suckling lamb.

  Sheep genetics.

  Grass and forage conservation.

  Grass and legumes on hills and uplands.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total imports by volume and by country of beef and beef products into the United Kingdom during 1988 from(a) other EEC countries and (b) non-EEC countries.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The tables give details of United Kingdom imports during 1988 of fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal, fresh, chilled and frozen beef offals and processed beef products in tonnes by exporting country as requested; the source is Eurostat.

  Fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal

  Tonnes

  (a) Other member states

  France

  14,853

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  805

  Netherlands

  22,700

  Federal Republic of Germany

  19,958

  Italy

  2,422

  Republic of Ireland

  107,228

  Denmark

  8,128

  Spain

  1,574

  (b) Non member states

  Yugoslavia

  3

  Poland

  152

  Czechoslovakia

  767

  Romania

  30

  Libya

  5

  British Indian overseas territory

  5

  Zimbabwe

  5,511

  Botswana

  2,536

  United States of America

  4,749

  Canada

  24

  Bahamas

  6

  Brazil

  12,354

  Paraguay

  313

  Uruguay

  5,060

  Argentina

  3,225

  Malaysia

  3

  Australia

  5,014

  New Zealand

  466

  Norway

  2

  Sweden

  1

  Austria

  6

  WORLD TOTAL

  217,906

  62

  Fresh, chilled and frozen beef offals

  Tonnes

  (a) Other member states

  France

  1,925

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,154

  Netherlands

  4,000

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1,831

  Italy

  1,580

  Republic of Ireland

  6,961

  Denmark

  318

  Spain

  158

  (b) Non member states

  Czechoslovakia

  17

  Hungary

  4

  British Indian overseas territory

  11

  United States of America

  23,704

  Canada

  1,570

  Paraguay

  19

  China

  19

  Australia

  4,676

  New Zealand

  288

  Sweden

  2,003

  Switzerland

  20

  WORLD TOTAL

  50,259

  Processed beef products

  Tonnes

  (a) Other member states

  France

  1,492

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  75

  Netherlands

  469

  Federal Republic of Germany

  121

  Italy

  231

  Republic of Ireland

  5,821

  Denmark

  377

  Spain

  7

  (b) Non member states

  Yugoslavia

  522

  Poland

  821

  Romania

  1,327

  Ethiopia

  153

  Mauritius

  210

  Zimbabwe

  2,475

  Botswana

  219

  United States of America

  2

  Canada

  65

  Antigua, Barbados

  159

  Brazil

  58,051

  Paraguay

  108

  Uruguay

  2,204

  Argentina

  17,241

  Cyprus

  1.041

  Singapore

  5

  Hong Kong

  9

  Australia

  986

  New Zealand

  89

  Switzerland

  3

  WORLD TOTAL

  94,299

  Food Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what work he is doing to establish the efficacy of food irradiation in dealing with salmonella and listeria contamination in children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The efficacy of food irradiation in severely reducing the numbers of pathogenic micro-organisms such as salmonella and listeria in poultrymeat has been well
  63
  established in past years through numerous studies. There is no need for my Department to be involved in further work on this subject.

  Dioxins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from the New Zealand Government on their inquiry into dioxins and food packaging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have seen the announcement by the New Zealand Government stating that the levels of dioxin found in samples of cartoned milk there are not considered a risk for milk drinkers.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to publish his report on the investigations into dioxins and food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The results of the work on dioxins in food carried out at my Ministry's food science laboratory will be made available shortly.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has had with the manufacturers of paper milk cartons on the subject of dioxins in milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  None. My officials are in close contact with manufacturers on this issue and they are being kept in touch with developments.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the advisory committee on pesticides has completed its review of danminozide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 3 May at column 124.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts of pesticides used each year since 1959.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has conducted sample surveys since 1965 on the use of pesticides for agricultural and horticultural crop protection. Similar arrangements have applied in Scotland since 1975. These published surveys have considered only a few crops each year, so a complete annual picture is not available. However, overviews have also been published from time to time and the following are the calculated annual averages for the periods in question. The quantities given are the amounts of active ingredients in the substance applied.

  Estimates of annual use of pesticides for crop protection in agriculture and horticulture

  (Tonnes of active ingredients)

  England and Wales

  1971–74

  1975–79

  1980–83

  Insecticides

  1,847

  1,607

  1,393

  Fungicides

  2,400

  2,336

  4,341

  Herbicides

  15,250

  19,925

  26,360

  Others

  2,565

  1,629

  3,439

  64

  Scotland

  1975–79

  1980–85

  Insecticides

  —

  152

  97

  Fungicides

  —

  303

  473

  Herbicides

  —

  4,415

  4,852

  Others

  —

  21

  72

  For 1965–70 there are no overall data available. The cycle of surveys after 1983 (1985 for Scotland) is not yet complete.

  Fertilisers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of fertilisers used each year since 1959.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not possible to provide such information as the term "fertiliser" covers a wide range of substances, while fertilisers are available in many different forms and in different concentrations and have many uses not restricted to agriculture.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising which does not breach commercial confidentiality for each of the past five years;

  (2) how much advertising air time his Ministry purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Nothing has been spent by my Department on commercial television advertisement in the last five years.

DEFENCE

  Services (Age Entry Limit)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if consideration has been given to raising the upper age entry limit for the armed services as a measure to deal with the falling numbers of school leavers in the 1990s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Navy is considering raising the upper age limit for officer entry but has no plans to change the age limit for Royal Navy ratings (currently 33) or Royal Marines other ranks (28).

  The Army also keeps it upper age limits under review and has made adjustments upwards recently for some officer entrants. There is provision to accept officers with special skills (for example, doctors and dentists) on qualifications and experience with formal age limit and for other ranks to join up to age 33.

  The current upper age limit for entry into the Royal Air Force is 39, except for some branches and trades where the physical demands of the work necessitate a lower age limit, for example the general duties (air) branch and the physical training instructor trade. There are no plans to change this, though there is provision to vary these limits in exceptional circumstances.

  Greenham Common
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been arrested under the RAF Greenham common byelaws since 23 February; and how many have been charged with offences under those byelaws since that date.

  Mr. Neubert
  Between 23 February and 10 May 34 individuals were arrested and reported with a view to prosecution by summons. The numbers of arrests involved has totalled 331.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year since 1983 and for current year to date, the number of flights that have been authorised to fly over the Yorkshire mainland at a height less than that set out in joint service publication 318 and the United Kingdom military low-flying handbook, as provided in section 51(b) of the Air Force Act 1955; what were the comparable national figures for those years; what air forces were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions were imposed on military low flying in the Lockerbie area in the period following the Pan Am crash on 21 December 1988; what was the radius of the restricted area; and on what date the restrictions were lifted.

  Mr. Neubert
  In the wake of the Lockerbie crash the Ministry of Defence took a number of steps in order to ensure that the citizens of Lockerbie and its environs were not disturbed by the activities of military aircraft carrying out routine training, including low flying, during follow-up work to the Pan Am crash. The position is being kept under careful and sensitive review in the light of circumstances in the area but it is not our practice to release detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report figures showing (a) the total number of movements by low-flying military aircraft over southern Scotland in 1988, (b) the number of complaints about low-flying received from southern Scotland in 1988, (c) the number of complaints about low-flying received from the Borders area in 1988 and (d) the proportion of low-flying activity over the United Kingdom which took place over southern Scotland in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to undertake measurements of the noise generated by military aircraft flying at 100 ft above ground level.

  Mr. Neubert
  Apart from measurements during the course of noise surveys in the immediate vicinity of various military airfields, there are at present no such plans.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) over what proportion of low flying area 13, military jet aircraft are permitted to fly at less than 250 ft minimum separation distance;
  66
  (2) over what proportion of low flying area 13, Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft are permitted to fly at 85 ft minimum separation distance.

  Mr. Neubert
  Flying below 250 ft minimum separation distance (msd) is only permitted in that part of low flying area 13 which is included within the Borders tactical training area and only when operational low-flying training is taking place. As with all operational low-flying training the lowest minimum separation distance permitted is 100 ft.

  721 Signals Unit, RAF
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the functions of Number 721 signals unit, Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  Number 721 signals unit controls the electronic warfare training range located at RAF Spadeadam, Cumbria, which provides a realistic electronic warfare training environment for the training of RAF and other NATO aircrew.

  Military Aircraft (Supersonic Flight)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom where supersonic flight by military aircraft is permitted over land, giving the minimum permitted altitude for such flights in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  Military aircraft are not permitted to exercise at supersonic speed over land in the United Kingdom.

  Noise Levels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the definitions of the noise level measurement systems(a) LA, (b) LOASP, (c) LPN, (d) LTPN, (e) LEPN, and (f) LAX; and which of these systems of measurement was used in (i) the figures provided in his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 22 March, Official Report, columns 617–18 and (ii) the figure of 125 dB (A) used in his Department's policy on noise compensation arrangements.

  Mr. Neubert
  The systems listed are defined as follows:

  (a) LA—maximum 'A' weighted sound pressure level;

  (b) LOASP—overall 'A' weighted sound pressure level;

  (c) LPN—perceived noise level;

  (d) LTPN—Tone-corrected perceived noise level;

  (e) LEPN—effective perceived noise level;

  (f) LAX—single event sound exposure level;

  The 'LA' system of measurement was used in the figures provided in the reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 22 March, Official Report, columns 617–18 and in the figure of 125 dB(A) used in the Ministry of Defence noise compensation policy.

  RAF Jaguar (Incident)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and circumstances of the accident to an RAF Jaguar near St. Abbs on 13 April.

  Mr. Neubert
  During a routine training exercise on 13 April, a Royal Air Force Jaguar GRI A aircraft stationed
  67
  at RAF Coltishall crashed into Lumsdaine cliff near St. Abb's head, killing the pilot. A board of inquiry has been established to investigate the cause of the accident, with a view to preventing a recurrence. A summary of its findings will be published in the usual way and a copy will be sent to the hon. Member, as I undertook when I wrote to him on 13 April.

  Iraqi Pilots
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi pilots have been trained by the Royal Air Force over each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  This information is confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iraq.

  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost so far to his Department of contesting the claims for compensation of the nuclear test injuries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This information is not readily obtainable and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Radiation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research commissioned by his Department into the relationship between cancer and radiation in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department keeps under review studies that might be appropriate to workers involved with radiation undertaken by the various organisations specialising in cancer research and epidemiology. It has also commissioned studies in four areas, which are:

  1. Mortality and Cancer Incidence in United Kingdom Participants in the United Kingdom Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon Tests and Experimental Programmes. (NRPB—R214dated January 1988).

  2. MRC study of Mortality of AWE workers.

  3. The current MRC study of Occupational Health in the Royal Naval Submarine Service.

  4. Part sponsorship of a new epidemiological analysis covering the combined nuclear industries.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of multiple myeloma amongst the people on the ship HMS Scarborough, which was present at the nuclear tests, were found by the National Radiological Protection Board in its study of the mortality of nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  HMS Scarborough was a meteorological data gathering ship and was on station in August and September 1958 to the north of Christmas Island at distances never less than 38km from the points of detonation.

  At no time was she, members of her crew or others on board her exposed to ionising radiation from the bursts, or from fall out, nor did she sail in waters contaminated with fall out at any levels above the normal background of the South Pacific area.

  The NRPB identified one case of multiple myeloma amongst those serving on HMS Scarborough during this period.
  68
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has refused to disclose any documents requested by the lawyers of the nuclear test veteran, Mr. Pearce, and other veterans seeking compensation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has not to date refused to disclose any documents requested by the lawyers of the nuclear test veterans seeking compensation. In the case of Mr. Pearce, however, his lawyers have been advised that there might be documents which, for security reasons, cannot be released, although every effort will be made to release relevant parts of those documents.

  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department provided information about radioactive levels at the British atomic test in 1950, to the Australian Supreme Court which awarded £300,000 compensation to an Australian present at the atomic tests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Copies of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Ministry of Defence reports which had previously been made freely available to Her Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia on many past occasions, were available to the Supreme Court of New South Wales which dealt with the civil claim in question.

  Some United Kingdom citizens, including one who is currently a senior Ministry of Defence officer, who had been present in the tests in 1953 and 1956, gave evidence before the court on a personal basis, on factual matters on which they had a direct personal knowledge. This included information on the radioactive levels at Emu field in the evidence given by the current Ministry of Defence officer.

  Nigeria (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms sales to Nigeria for each of the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to give details about arms sales to particular countries.

  Submariners
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Ministry has sought or has been sent any evidence indicating that the health of sailors in nuclear submarines is significantly different from that of sailors in non-nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. There is no evidence to suggest any difference in the health of sailors in nuclear submarines compared with those in non-nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been given to submarine sailors regarding the objectives of the study of their health and the findings so far; and if he is proposing to make available to sailors all the information obtained by the study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No advance information to sailors about the Medical Research Council study, was either given or considered necessary. The study was commissioned by the MOD purely as a scientific study to
  69
  examine all the possible medical effects of the machine-manufactured submarine environment, and was not specifically aimed at any particular aspect. The study is still in progress and it is too early to comment on any possible findings. On completion of the study report, non-classified information will be available in medical libraries.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information regarding their health has been provided to individual sailors for them to discuss with their general practitioners.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While individual sailors are in the service, advice from the Medical Officer/General Practitioner is always available. When they leave the service, there is a standard procedure for the release of copies of the medical documents to the nominated civilian GP for the puposes of treatment. The radiation dose records of those serving submariners designated as radiation workers can be released to the individuals on request, and are forwarded as a matter of course when they leave the service, in accordance with the "Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985".

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the study of the health of submariner sailors began; when it is expected to end; what interim reports have there been; and what are the objectives of the study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The study into mortality and morbidity amongst submariners began in 1987, and will be completed in 1990. No interim reports have been issued because the first year was taken up with identifying the survey population. We are now looking at the service health records of those who have retired from the Royal Navy. The Institute of Naval Medicine is monitoring the progress of the study, but the design and conduct of the study remain independent, and in the hands of the Medical Research Council. The purpose of the study is to seek further confirmation, by an independent body, that service in submarines is not detrimental to the health of naval personnel. The study was not initiated in response to any perceived or anticipated medical problem.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the design of the study of the health of submarine sailors is such that it would show whether or not the health of sailors in nuclear submarines is significantly different from that of sailors in non-nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aim of the study, which will include personnel from both types of submarine, is to study the effect on people of working for long periods in an artificially-controlled environment. Comparison will be made with other sailors and other similar age groups in the civilian population.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much advertising air time his Ministry purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

  Ship-Town Links
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links each of the following Royal Navy ships have with towns or cities in the United Kingdom; what is the nature of each ship to town link; and what are the annual costs involved to the Royal Navy of such links: (i) HMS Resolution, (ii) HMS Repulse, (iii) HMS Renown, (iv) HMS Revenge, (v) HMS Invincible, (vi) HMS Illustrous, (vii) HMS Ark Royal, (viii) HMS Birmingham, (ix) HMS Newcastle, (x) HMS Glasgow, (xi) HMS Cardiff, (xii) HMS Exeter, (xiii) HMS Southampton, (xiv) HMS Nottingham, (xv) HMS Liverpool, (xvi) HMS Manchester, (xvii) HMS Gloucester, (xviii) HMS Edinburgh, (xix) HMS York, (xx) HMS Broadsword, (xxi) HMS Battleaxe, (xxii) HMS Brilliant, (xxiii) HMS Brazen, (xxiv) HMS Boxer, (xxv) HMS Beaver, (xxvi) HMS Brave, (xxvii) HMS London, (xxviii) HMS Coventry, and (xxix) HMS Sheffield.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The ship to town/city links are as follows:

  Town/City

  HMS Resolution

  Burton-on-Trent

  HMS Repulse

  Rotherham

  HMS Invincible

  City of Durham

  HMS Illustrious

  The Cinque Ports

  HMS Ark Royal

  Leeds

  HMS Birmingham

  Birmingham

  HMS Newcastle

  Newcastle

  HMS Glasgow

  Glasgow

  HMS Cardiff

  Cardiff

  HMS Exeter

  Exeter

  HMS Southampton

  Southampton

  HMS Nottingham

  Nottingham

  HMS Liverpool

  Liverpool

  HMS Manchester

  Manchester

  HMS Gloucester

  Gloucester

  HMS Edinburgh

  Edinburgh

  HMS York

  York

  HMS Broadsword

  Chester

  HMS Battleaxe

  Newport, Gwent

  HMS Brilliant

  Tunbridge Wells

  HMS Brazen

  County Durham

  HMS Boxer

  Trafford, Manchester

  HMS Beaver

  Bolton

  HMS Brave

  Waveney District Council

  HMS London

  City of London

  HMS Coventry

  Coventry

  HMS Sheffield

  Sheffield

  HMS Renown and HMS Revenge are not currently affiliated to a town or city.

  Much of the activity associated with these affiliations is concerned with charitable work. Each ship is connected with at least one local charity and makes considerable contributions to it by means of voluntary fund-raising activities contained within its already busy programme. Many of the ships have been granted honorary freedom of their affiliated towns and their companies are honorary freemen. These affiliations are greatly valued by both sides.

  The precise cost to the Royal Navy of these affiliations is not recorded separately from that of other activities and would involve disproportionate effort to calculate. The costs are, however, likely to be small, consisting largely of the cost of public transport to visit towns and cities not accessible by sea approximately once every two years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people in receipt of invalidity pension who have an income from an occupational pension scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that in 1986, the latest period for which information is available, about 300,000 invalidity pensioners also had some income from an occupational pension.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the introduction of family credit has affected the incomes of those families at the bottom end of the income scale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Family credit is a much more generous benefit than family income supplement which it replaced. For example, a family with three children aged nine, 11 and 13, claiming since 10 April, would normally be entitled to family credit of £66·70 a week if their net income was below the threshold of £54·80; about £42 a week if their net income was £90; about £24 a week if their net income was £115; and about £7 a week if their net income was £140. Family credit is now in payment to over ¼ million working families at an average award of over £25 a week. We are currently carrying out a major campaign to increase awareness of this very worthwhile benefit.

  Terminally Ill People (Allowances)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce a decision about the recommendation of the social security advisory committee on the allowances paid to the terminally ill.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the hon. Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 6 March at columns 585–86.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1985–86

  1984–85

  £'000s

  £/sq ft

  £'000s

  £/sq ft

  £'000s

  £/sq ft

  £'000s

  £/sq ft

  £'000s

  £/sq ft

  Rent

  77,772

  4·45

  68,624

  4·06

  63,193

  3·87

  62,596

  3·91

  60,624

  3·79

  Rates

  40,589

  2·32

  35,852

  2·12

  32,662

  2·00

  32,693

  2·04

  33,912

  2·12

  Total Accommodation costs

  170,118

  9·73

  140,583

  8·31

  123,323

  7·56

  121,386

  7·58

  120,850

  7·55

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the last revaluation of plant and equipment

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his future plans for the method of payment of benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The main focus of the Department's efforts to improve service to the public in the area of paying benefits is currently through the massive extension of computers to local offices. The Department is also striving to encourage people to have their benefits paid direct to bank accounts. This is cheaper, more convenient for many, and reduces the risk of fraud. We have no intention to adopt any method of payment which requires the use of plastic cards but we will continue to examine whether such methods offer further advantages.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on the revision of the employers' guide to statutory sick pay and associated forms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A new package of leaflets about statutory sick pay was issued to all employers in February 1989 for use from April 1989. This included "A Quick Guide to SSP" and a revised "Employers Manual". New statutory sick pay forms were introduced from the same date.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates of his Department in total, in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1 April 1984 the Department has paid most of its property costs to the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment. This payment, known as the accommodation charge, consists of rent, rates, retained maintenance and administration. The rent figures quoted include opportunity cost rents determined by the Property Services Agency. The Department has direct responsibility for certain minor works, maintenance, and internal redecoration. Expenditure for these items has been included in the total accommodation costs figure shown in the table.

  Up to March 1988 expenditure for new construction and other major capital works was the responsibility of the Property Services Agency. From April 1988 responsibility has been divided between the Department and the Property Services Agency but expenditure figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. These costs are therefore not included in the table. Information prior to 1 April 1984 is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.
  73
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the rules of Government accounting the Department operates cash-based systems which enable Parliament to be satisfied that amounts of cash voted to be spent on certain activities have been so spent. There has therefore been no need to maintain comprehensive up-to-date valuations of plant and equipment, the purchase cost of which is tightly controlled through the cash accounting system and plant and equipment asset charges are not entered in the accounts.

  Benefits (Assessments)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit cases, over the past five years, have required further review, due to errors in the initial assessment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently employed by his Department for the purposes of assessing benefit claims; and if he will express this as a percentage of the total employed by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not hold information in the precise form requested. A wide variety of benefit claims are assessed in the Department's local offices, our central offices at Newcastle and Blackpool and the transitional payment unit in Glasgow. On 1 May 1989, 71,454 staff (90 per cent. of the total departmental staff) were employed in these offices. As well as dealing with benefit claims these staff also handle general inquiries and other aspects of departmental business.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many nuclear test veterans or their widows have received payments because of suffering or death from(a) leukaemia and (b) multiple myeloma; how many have applied and been rejected; and what are the criteria for acceptance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One war disablement pension and six war widow's pensions have been awarded because service men who took part in nuclear tests contracted or died of leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia) or multiple myeloma. The criteria for the award of a pension are that the service man contracted, or died of, either of these two conditions and was present at a nuclear test and therefore no claims which satisfy these criteria are rejected.

  Housing Benefits
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to transfer the cost of housing benefits for council house tenants to local authority housing revenue accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Social security appeal statistics

  Great Britain—Quarter ending March 1988

  Benefit type

  Total number of appeals heard and decided

  Total number in favour of claimant

  Total number of adjudication officers' decisions upheld

  Total number of adjudication

  Attendance allowance

  52

  11

  41

  21

  Child benefit

  543

  105

  438

  110

  Disablement benefit

  623

  266

  357

  214

  74
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's proposals in the Local Government and Housing Bill for a new financial regime for local authority housing in England and Wales provide for a new housing revenue account subsidy to replace a number of existing central Government subsidies, including rent rebate subsidy. Where the subsidy assessment shows that an authority would, in other respects, be capable of making a surplus on the account, this surplus would be offset against the housing revenue account subsidy. With this exception, rent rebate expenditure would continue to be funded by the Exchequer. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the new arrangements would take effect from 1 April 1990.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of supplementary benefit/income support payments for residential care for elderly people, nationally and for each social security region, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the estimated expenditure nationally on payments of supplementary benefit/income support to elderly people in private and voluntary residential care homes. I regret that information on a regional basis is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Before December 1985 data were not collected in the form requested.

  Annual equivalent expenditure(nearest £ million)

  December 1985

  200

  May 1986

  234

  May 1987

  329

  May 1988

  400

  Source: December 1985, May 1986, May 1987 and May 1988 Quarterly Statistical Inquiries.

  Note: The amounts for 1985–87 relate to supplementary pensions, and the one for 1988 to payments of income support to people aged 60 or more.

  Appeals Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish a table showing the number of appeals heard by social security appeal tribunals and the number decided in the claimant's favour, the number decided in favour of the adjudication officer and the number adjourned in each quarter of 1988, broken down by subject of appeal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest national administrative statistics available on social security appeal tribunals relate to appeals heard in the third quarter of 1988. Information is provided in the tables for the quarters ending March, June and September 1988.
  75

  Benefit type

  Total number of appeals heard and decided

  Total number in favour of claimant

  Total number of adjudication officers' decisions upheld

  Total number of adjudication

  Family income supplement

  298

  57

  241

  58

  Guardians allowance

  9

  0

  9

  2

  Industrial death benefit

  16

  3

  13

  5

  Invalid care allowance

  275

  22

  253

  42

  Invalidity benefit

  1,241

  529

  712

  328

  Maternity benefit (pre April 1987)

  47

  7

  40

  4

  Maternity allowance (from April 1987)

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Mobility allowance

  376

  14

  362

  34

  One parent benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retirement pension

  213

  62

  151

  41

  Severe disablement allowance

  50

  11

  39

  12

  Sickness benefit

  359

  101

  258

  58

  Social Fund:

  Funeral payments

  86

  16

  70

  14

  Maternity payments

  208

  42

  166

  27

  Statutory maternity pay

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Statutory sick pay

  11

  3

  8

  0

  Supplementary benefit:

  Single payments

  32,198

  8,982

  23,216

  5,917

  Others

  11,028

  2,911

  8,117

  2,447

  Unemployment benefit

  6,662

  2,235

  4,427

  928

  Widows benefit

  56

  23

  33

  8

  Workmen's compensation pneumoconiosis and byssinosis

  4

  1

  3

  4

  Social security appeal statistics

  Great Britain—Quarter ending March 1988

  Benefit type

  Total number of appeals heard and decided

  Total number in favour of claimant

  Total number of adjudication officers' decisions upheld

  Total number of adjudication

  Attendance allowance

  73

  21

  52

  20

  Child benefit

  518

  107

  411

  84

  Disablement benefit

  512

  197

  315

  215

  Family credit

  4

  0

  4

  0

  Family income supplement

  272

  42

  230

  50

  Guardians allowance

  13

  3

  10

  3

  Income support

  127

  9

  118

  19

  Industrial death benefit

  12

  6

  6

  4

  Invalid care allowance

  135

  12

  123

  26

  Invalidity benefit

  1,088

  491

  597

  376

  Maternity benefit (pre April 1987)

  28

  9

  19

  3

  Maternity allowance (from April 1987)

  4

  1

  3

  2

  Mobility allowance

  347

  9

  338

  18

  One parent benefit

  13

  2

  11

  0

  Retirement pension

  161

  32

  129

  46

  Severe disablement allowance

  63

  34

  29

  14

  Sickness benefit

  273

  86

  187

  65

  Social fund:

  Funeral payments

  103

  23

  80

  12

  Maternity payments

  149

  24

  125

  14

  Statutory maternity pay

  2

  0

  2

  1

  Statutory sick pay

  8

  1

  7

  1

  Supplementary benefit:

  Single payments

  31,700

  9,596

  22,104

  5,317

  Others

  9,505

  2,672

  6,833

  2,284

  Unemployment benefit

  5,574

  2,010

  3,744

  871

  Widows benefit

  68

  24

  44

  11

  Workmen's compensation pneumoconiosis and byssinosis

  7

  1

  6

  2

  76 77

  Social security appeal statistics

  Great Britain—Quarter ending March 1988

  Benefit type

  Total number of appeals heard and decided

  Total number in favour of claimant

  Total number of adjudication officers' decisions upheld

  Total number of adjournments

  Attendance allowance

  45

  12

  33

  18

  Child benefit

  472

  92

  380

  131

  Disablement benefit

  473

  190

  283

  236

  Family credit

  162

  22

  140

  43

  Family income supplement

  228

  38

  190

  53

  Guardians allowance

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Income support

  1,812

  242

  1,570

  397

  Industrial death benefit

  15

  4

  11

  15

  Invalid care allowance

  142

  26

  116

  34

  Invalidity benefit

  1,183

  542

  641

  444

  Maternity benefit (pre April 1987)

  22

  9

  13

  3

  Maternity allowance (from April 1987)

  7

  1

  6

  1

  Mobility allowance

  359

  7

  352

  47

  One parent benefit

  14

  2

  12

  1

  Retirement pension

  191

  58

  133

  40

  Severe disablement allowance

  45

  16

  29

  21

  Sickness benefit

  289

  108

  181

  60

  Social fund:

  Funeral payments

  144

  25

  119

  31

  Maternity payments

  157

  23

  134

  33

  Statutory maternity pay

  3

  1

  2

  2

  Statutory sick pay

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Supplementary benefit:

  Single payments

  27,512

  8,502

  19,010

  5,503

  Others

  8,526

  2,661

  5,865

  2,426

  Unemployment benefit

  5,254

  1,805

  3,449

  854

  Widows benefit

  93

  34

  59

  23

  Workmen's compensation pneumoconiosis and byssinosis

  4

  1

  3

  1

  Pensioners' Income
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the income of pensioners with no other source of income than state benefits and excluding housing benefit payments as a proportion of the average earnings of all male workers in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested cannot be produced on a consistent basis for each year since 1974. The table shows the requested information on a consistent basis for the available years.

  Pensioners' Average Gross Income Less Housing Benefit as a Percentage of Average Male Earnings

  Percentage

  1984

  25

  1985

  24

  1986

  24

  Reasons for refusal of Social Fund loans and grants 1988–89

  Loans

  Grants

  Number of times reason given

  As a percentage of all refusals

  Number of times reason given

  As a percentage of all refusals

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  938

  0·3

  2,498

  1·7

  Not in receipt of IS

  33,613

  9·7

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  99,907

  27·2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  n.a.

  n.a.

  15,842

  10·9

  Excluded items

  30,759

  8·4

  9,563

  6·6

  Excluded persons

  1,094

  0·3

  13,734

  9·4

  78
  Note:

  1. Pensioners are defined as tax units with no private income.

  2. Prior to 1983 Housing Benefit was contained within Supplementary Benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, further to his reply on 4 May,Official Report, column 220, he will categorise the reasons for the remaining social fund loan refusals and community care grant refusals for the year 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest provisional estimates of all reasons for refusal for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 March are set out as follows:
  79

  Loans

  Grants

  Number of times reason given

  As a percentage of all refusals

  Number of times reason given

  As a percentage of all refusals

  Amount < £30 (not traveling expenses)

  11,952

  3·3

  3,707

  2·5

  Total debt of £1,000

  198

  0·1

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  14,639

  4·0

  5,071

  3·5

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  24,266

  6·6

  0

  0·0

  Inability to repay

  14,971

  41

  0

  0·0

  Help available from another source

  8,281

  2·3

  2,136

  1·5

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  84,027

  22·9

  13,419

  9·2

  Other agencies not providing back-up

  n.a.

  n.a.

  85

  0·1

  Suitable alternative available

  3,978

  1·1

  1,177

  0·8

  Loan refused—CCG awarded

  14,725

  4·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Other

  25,113

  6·8

  82,400

  56·5

  Total

  100·7

  102·5

  Note: Percentages add to more than 100 because an individual application may be refused for more than one reason.

  Benefit Claims (Women)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of and how many(a) supplementary benefit in 1987–88 and (b) income support in 1988–89 claims from couples were made by women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, the most recent information available indicates that, in May 1987, of all supplementary benefit claimants with partners, 18,994* or 1·8 per cent. were women. We estimate that, of all income support claimants with partners in May 1988, about 25,000 or 3 per cent. were women.

  *Source: May 1987 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the changes in social security provision since May 1979 which have affected the entitlement of(a) 16 to 17-year-olds, (b) 18 to 20-year-olds and (c) 21 to 25-year-olds to supplementary benefit or any other benefit or which have affected the entitlement to any benefit of their parents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of doubling the value of child benefit; and what would be the cost if the benefit at this new level were made part of taxable income and the saving on other social security payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Precise costs and savings would depend on the assumptions made for the calculation of social security benefits other than child benefit. In broad terms, the orders of magnitude might be as follows:
  80

  £ billion

  Child Benefit Cost

  4·5

  Saving in income related benefits and child dependency increases

  1·1

  Increase in income tax revenue

  1·9

  Net Cost

  11·6

  1The figures do not sum due to rounding·

  Household Income
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, 20 February,Official Report, column 481, what is the net income after the Budget proposals have come into effect (i) after housing costs of a married man with children aged 13 and 16 years earning (a) L104 and (b) L105 per week, (ii) of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years paying average rent and rates as used in the tax benefit model tables earning (a) £65 per week and (b) £80 per week, (iii) after benefits of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £60 per week gross and (b) £140 per week gross, (iv) under current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged three, eight and 11 years with gross earnings of (a) £65 per week and (b) £105 per week and (v) under the current tax and benefit structure of a married man with children aged four and six years earning (a) £80 per week and (b) £90 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Gross earnings

  £

  £

  Net income after housing costs1 assessed on 1989–90 benefits national insurance contributions (post October) and tax rates and thresholds

  (i) married man with children 13 and 16 years

  (a)

  104

  113·01

  (b)

  105

  113·21

  (ii) married man with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  (a)

  65

  114·51

  (b)

  80

  115·12

  81

  Gross earnings

  £

  £

  Total net income2 assessed on 1989–90 benefits national insurance contributions (post October) and tax rates and thresholds

  (iii) married man with children aged 4 and 6

  (a)

  60

  127·03

  (b)

  140

  135·99

  Total net income2 assessed on 1989–90 benefits national insurance contributions 1988–89 tax rates and thresholds

  (iv) married man with children aged 3, 8 and 11

  (a)

  65

  144·99

  (b)

  105

  148·54

  (v) married man with children aged 4 and 6

  (a)

  80

  127·77

  (b)

  90

  128·08

  Note: The assumptions used are those in the 1988 tax benefit models which have been adjusted in line with prices to reflect the position in 1989.

  1"Net income after housing costs" is calculated by adding together the various elements in a family's weekly income (earnings, social security benefits and housing benefit) and deducting certain outgoings (income tax, national insurance contributions and rent and rates'.

  2"Total net income" is calculated by adding to take home pay (gross earnings minus tax and national insurance) social security benefits and housing benefit.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, in respect of the community charge, how many decision notices (NHB2(CC)) have been sent to district councils by the local offices of the Department of Social Security in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for the number of decision notices issued are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners (Limited Practice Allowance)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he sought or has available as to the effects, particularly in areas of rapid population growth, of his proposals to discontinue the limited practice allowance for general practitioners; and what savings he expects from implementation of such a policy.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our new contract proposal for raising the qualifying threshold for basic practice allowance from a minimum of 100 to 400 patients has now been agreed with the general medical services committee's negotiators. The proposal will strengthen general practitioners' commitment to the provision of general medical services, and provide an incentive to general practitioners to build up their lists. For general practitioners providing essential services who are unable to attract at least 400 patients the present inducement allowance arrangements will apply. In areas of development, where, for example, a new housing estate is being built, a general practitioner may be able to claim an initial practice allowance which will provide sufficient remuneration until he or she has built up his or her list.
  82
  Because fees and allowances are set to deliver to the profession as a whole the level of remuneration recommended by the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, no savings to the Government arise from this proposal.

  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1979 the total health and personal social services(a) current expenditure (gross) and (b) capital expenditure (net); and if he will give those totals adjusted by the HCHS pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table sets out gross current and net capital expenditure on health and personal social services in cash terms for the period from 1978–79 to 1988–89. The HCHS pay and price deflator is an index of inflationary pressures on current expenditure in the hospital and community health services alone. It would be inappropriate therefore to apply the index to total health and personal social services expenditure.

  Total health and personal social services expenditure

  (i) Gross current £ million cash

  (ii) Net capital £ million cash

  1978–79

  7,423

  412

  1979–80

  8,885

  465

  1980–81

  11,439

  626

  1981–82

  12,747

  744

  1982–83

  13,950

  763

  1983–84

  14,863

  805

  1984–85

  15,884

  871

  1985–86

  16,770

  921

  1986–87

  18,123

  943

  1987–88

  20,053

  922

  11988–89

  22,296

  974

  1 Estimated outturn

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the treatment for in vitro fertilisation in the South West regional health authority area is available free of charge for patients living in north Devon as it is for patients living in Bristol.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions about the priority and resources to be given to infertility services as a whole, and the place of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) programmes within them, are matters for district health authorities. They are in the best position to make such decisions in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  An IVF service with provision for free treatment has recently been introduced in north Devon, as a joint scheme between the health authority and the voluntary sector.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has received about the incidence of head lice infestation among primary school children; and what advice his Department is offering to local education authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about the incidence of head lice infestation is not available in the precise form requested. However, we do have the following details:
  83

  Health surveillance by nurses: maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools

  Number of infestations1

  1987–88 England

  Number of pupils examined (thousands)

  4,546·3

  Number of pupils found to be infested (thousands)

  91·4

  Infested pupils as a percentage of the maintained school population

  1·27

  1 Infestations include head lice, vermin, scabies, ringworm, impetigo and verrucae.

  Responsibility for the control of head lice infection among pupils lies with individual health authorities through the school health services. It is for them to determine the policy for dealing with this problem in the light of local circumstances. Many have stopped routine head inspections and are now adopting more positive practices through health education programmes and advice to parents and children on head lice infestation and how to deal with the problem.

  Pain
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has as to what proportion of pain sufferers recorded as suffering from pain of over three months duration are over the age of 60 years; and what provision is being made for them;

  (2) what provision is being made under the National Health Service to help pain sufferers;

  (3) what information he has as to how many patients at any given time are recorded as suffering from pain lasting for three or more months which is unrelieved or only marginally alleviated by treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. Relief of pain is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctors responsible for the care of the patient. Some health authorities do provide pain clinics. This is a matter for local decision in the light of the health authority's assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates, of his Department in total, in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  Property costs for premises occupied by the Department are incurred by the Property Services Agency.

  For the NHS, expenditure in England on rent and contributions in lieu of rates is as follows:

  Rents

  Contributions in lieu of rates

  £ 000 (cash)

  £ 000 (cash)

  1983–84

  20,752

  127,190

  1984–85

  21,951

  136,952

  1985–86

  21,375

  148,833

  1986–87

  22,365

  168,055

  1987–88

  24,697

  169,965

  These figures, which cannot be related to the floor areas, are taken from the annual accounts submitted to the
  84
  Department. They include expenditure recorded by regional and district health authorities, the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and sums within the administration expenses of family practitioner committees. The costs of certain other special health authorities and bodies comprising the NHS, and payments made to medical practitioners and others contracted to provide family practitioner services, are excluded. Figures are not available for the replacement of assets.

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health, like most other Government Departments, operates cash-based systems which enable Parliament to be satisfied that amounts of cash voted to be spent on certain activities have been so spent. There has therefore been no overall need, apart from those limited areas where repayment transactions are conducted, to maintain comprehensive up-to-date valuations of plant and equipment, the purchase cost of which is tightly controlled through the cash accounting system and plant and equipment asset replacement charges are often not entered in the accounts.

  For the NHS a valuation of all assets owned by the NHS, including plant and equipment, will be unertaken later this year as part of the preparation for the proposed introduction of a capital charging system.

  Radiation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cancers are recognised as being attributable wholly or partly to radiation; and if he will list them;

  (2) what methods are used to identify whether or not a cancer can be caused or aggravated by radiation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am advised that most of the information available on the risk of cancer from exposure to radiation has been drawn from epidemiological studies. Groups such as the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been shown to have an increased risk of developing some forms of cancer some years after being exposed to large doses of radiation. Corroborative evidence has been drawn from studies of other groups such as those given radiation therapy for a variety of diseases, and from animal studies. This information is contained in the recent report from the United Nations scientific commission on the effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) (Official Records: forty-third session—supplement No. 45 (A/43/45) a copy of which I will place in the Library shortly. At present, there are no chemical, biological or physiological methods which can determine whether a given cancer is primarily caused by radiation, by another factor, or by a combination of factors.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what collaboration there has been with experts in other countries regarding the identification of cancers caused or aggravated by radiation; and if he will detail the consultation there has been with United States experts.
  85
  Mr. Freeman
  Advice to the Government on the effects of radiation is provided by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The board's advice on the effects of exposure to radiation on the incidence of cancer is based on a review of all the information available from national and international sources. Some of these sources include the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the United Nations scientific commission on the effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR), and the United States' commission on the biological effects of ionising radiation (BEIR).

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research commissioned into the relationship between cancer and radiation in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following list shows the current research directly funded by the Department.

  (a) Analysis of cancer incidence in young people in small areas.

  (b) Incidence of Leukaemia in west Berkshire.

  (c) Geographical studies of Childhood Cancer incidence.

  (d) Investigation of the effect of Radon in houses.

  (e) Microscopy studies of persorption of radionuclides through the wall of the gut.

  (f) Study of the amount of radioactivity which passes into foetal tissue via the placenta.

  (g) Investigation of the radiosensitivity of hone marrow stem cells.

  A full list of such research over the last 30 years is not readily available. However, the right hon. Member may wish to consult the handbooks of research and development published annually. Copies are available in the Library.

  For information on research undertaken for the Department by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, I refer the right hon. Member to the authority's radiation protection research annual report 1988 (AERE R 13204), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average occupancy and cost per bed-night for teaching hospitals, district general hospitals and community hospitals in(a) England, (b) the South West regional health authority and (c) Cornwall district health authority area.

  Mr. Freeman
  For information on average occupancy and costs by types of hospital in England and in the south western region I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's annual publication "Health Services Costing Returns" (the latest being for 1986–87)—copies of which are held in the Library. The publication also includes tables providing some information about teaching hospitals and for information specific to hospitals within the area of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of that authority.

  We intend to publish information on the financial year 1987–88 in the summer.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals which have applied to him expressing an interest in becoming self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply of 8 May to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at column 321.
  86
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to organise a ballot of the residents of Bassetlaw to decide whether they are in favour of the Bassetlaw hospital, Worksop, being run as a self-governing trust.

  Mr. Mellor
  No, but if an application for self-governing status is made, I will look to Trent regional health authority to seek the views of all those with an interest, including local residents.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed hospital trusts will be allowed to retain the proceeds from any asset sales.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes, since the assets will be vested in the trusts. The Secretary of State will have a reserve power to prevent the sale of an asset if, in his opinion, the disposal would be against the public interest.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations have taken place between the Walsall health authority and his Department concerning hospitals in the Walsall area opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Mellor
  None, but if a formal application is made for hospitals in Walsall to become self-governing I will look to West Midlands RHA to seek the views of all interested parties.

  Dentists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conditions are recognised as occupational diseases in dentists working within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no list of conditions which are recognised as occupational diseases in dentists working within the National Health Service.

  To qualify under the NHS compensation and injury benefit schemes a dentist must show that any condition suffered by him was contracted in the course of his NHS employment and must be attributable to that employment. Each case is considered on its merits.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if under notice FPN 472 general practitioners will be held responsible, in post-treatment disputes with the dental reference service, for any acts or omissions of a dentist working within the hospital or community services if such treatment was provided as part of a course of other treatment for which a practitioner has had to sign a certificate of dental fitness.

  Mr. Freeman
  The obligations on a dentist providing general dental services to make a patient dentally fit are set out in full in schedule 1 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1973. The guidance given in FPN 472 does not alter these obligations.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, under the arrangements for the funding and payment for dentures and bridges provided through hospital and community dental services under notice FPN 472, who will be responsible for the collection of patient charges and collection of bad debts.

  Mr. Freeman
  The continuing health authority responsibility for collection of patient charges (and bad
  87
  debts) for dentures and bridges provided through the hospital and community dental service was not affected by FPN 472. Circular HC(FP)(89)5/HN 89/8 issued in March 1989 did, however, provide revised guidance on the calculation of such charges.

  Contraception
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the total current annual cost to the National Health Service of special payments made to general practitioners for contraceptive advice and prescription.

  Mr. Mellor
  The provisional 1988–89 cost, in England, of payments to general medical practitioners for contraceptive services is £32.4 million.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the total current annual cost to the National Health Service on contraceptive drugs and devices issued to patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  We cannot identify the cost of contraceptive drugs and devices issued at health authorities' family planning clinics or those provided by hospitals or by dispensing doctors.

  The net ingredient cost of contraceptive drugs and appliances prescribed by GPs and dispensed by retail pharmacists and appliance contractors was estimated at £21 million in England in 1987, the latest full year for which figures are available. This figure is based on a sample of approximately one in 200 prescriptions.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement outlining the reasons for special payments to general practitioners for contraceptive advice and prescription;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to cease to make special payments to general practitioners for contraceptive advice and prescription.

  Mr. Mellor
  Fees are paid to general practitioners who provide contraceptive services, in recognition of the time and effort of those doctors who choose to provide these services to patients. This is consistent with our policy that GPs' remuneration should be sensitive to the numbers of patients in their care and the range of services provided. The participation of GPs in the provision of contraceptive services gives patients a choice between practice-based services and health authority clinics. We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has any plans to issue new guidance to general practitioners concerning the prescription of contraceptive drugs;

  (2) what response his Department has made to the recent reports of increased levels of cancer in long-term users of contraceptive drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) was provided with advance details of the recent study by Chilvers et al on oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women and was able to formulate and issue advice to doctors and pharmacists in its bulletin "Current Problems No. 26." A copy is in the Library. CSM advice was also sent to a range of other interested bodies including family planning organisations. In 88
  addition, officials of the Department have met representatives of pharmaceutical companies marketing oral contraceptives and have been in touch regarding this and other studies with their counterparts in the World Health Organisation and regulatory bodies in other countries. The CSM is continuing to monitor ongoing studies and cancer registration rates and will maintain close communication with all those involved. More generally the handbook of contraceptive practice issued by the Department to all general practitioners and family planning doctors includes advice on oral contraception. Work on a new edition by representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Standing Medical Advisory Committee is well in hand for distribution later this year.

  Drug Safety
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the patient information leaflets proposed under EEC directives would include contra-indications, precautions and warnings for all medicines at present prescribed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  Present European Community (EC) law (article 6 of directive 75/319) with which United Kingdom regulations conform already requires contra-indications, warnings and precautions if a leaflet is supplied. The current proposed amendment would not affect that requirement. The change would be to make a leaflet mandatory unless the information was supplied on the label. Further developments may follow from the EC Commission study on patient information.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on promoting alternatives to benzodiazepine prescription; and what funds are available for this purpose.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department is financing a conference on developing counselling in primary care. This was attended by over 150 general practitioners and counsellors and focused on the better identification of people needing counselling and the better organisation of services.

  The Department is funding the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) to develop a directory of services for people with benzodiazepine-related problems. This will include a wide variety of agencies in both the statutory and non-statutory fields, offering alternative therapies including counselling, behavioural and psychological techniques, as well as self-help groups. In addition, central funding has been made available to provide a revised version of a leaflet for the public and professionals giving information on benzodiazepine use and alternative strategies to it.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients wait for(a) plastic surgery and (b) other surgical treatment for more than one year.

  Mr. David Mellor
  The information requested is published in the booklet "Hospital In-Patient Waiting Lists at 30 September 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is commercial in confidence.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update his answer of 27 January,Official Report, columns 795–98, showing the total amount spent by his Department on research into the sexual abuse of children in each of the years since 1979, listing the name of each project, its cost and completion date.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 9 March,Official Report, column 607, how many times the inter-departmental working group on child sexual abuse has met since 9 March; and what has been discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  The group has not met since 9 March.

  GPs (Trainees)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available on the sums from the statement of fees and allowance or other votes which were budgeted and the sums which were paid to general practitioner trainees and general practitioner trainers in each of the past three years, indicating the respective numbers of trainers and trainees.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: Payments to trainers and trainees, are drawn from the voted provision for the general medical services and are not subject to separate budgets.

  Expenditure in England on grants to trainers and the reimbursement of salary and other costs for trainees in the last three years for which full data are available was as follows:

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  Grants (trainers)

  6·31

  6·345

  6·522

  Other expenditure (trainees)

  28·777

  30·489

  33·4555

  The number of trainers and trainees in the same years (1 October) in England and Wales are as follows:—

  1985

  1986

  1987

  GP trainers

  2,704

  2,769

  2,792

  GP trainees

  1,924

  1,814

  1,876

  Professional Misconduct
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the provisions of statutory instrument 2255/88 paragraph 6.(i) concerning the reference to complaints alleging serious 90
  professional misconduct are being implemented by the administrative arrangements adopted by the General Medical Council.

  Mr. Mellor
  The General Medical Council is an independent statutory body whose constitution and functions are regulated by the Medical Act 1983. Rule 6.(i) of SI 2255/88 provides that where a complaint in writing or information in writing is received by the registrar of the council and it appears to him that a question arises whether conduct of a practitioner constitutes serious professional misconduct the registrar shall submit the matter to the president.

  The administrative arrangements within the GMC are for the council to determine and the hon. Member should approach the registrar directly if he requires specific information.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the arrangements currently in force for the public health examination of beef imports at the port of entry to the United Kingdom of products(a) from within the EEC and (b) from outside the EEC.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Port health authorities have responsibility for public health examinations of beef imports to ensure their compliance with the imported food regulations 1984.

  All meat entering the United Kingdom must come from export-approved plants, other member states, or from plants in third countries which have been approved by the EC Commission. Consignments must be accompanied by a health certificate signed by a veterinarian authorised by the Government of the exporting country confirming that the strict hygiene standards of the appropriate EC directive have been fully satisfied.

  Port health authorities inspect all consignments from third countries in accordance with Community provisions and make sample examination of those from other member states.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the property costs, including rent, asset replacement and rates of his Department in total, in each standard both in total and per square foot for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information in the precise form requested is not available. Home Office properties are divided into three separate estates for property management purposes, each of which is treated differently: the property repayment services (PRS) estate, comprising properties for which the Property Services Agency is responsible; the prisons estate, which is directly managed by the prison department; and the non-PRS estate, comprising mainly the directorate of telecommunications and centrally provided police research and training establishments. Accommodation and property costs information available for each of the three estates since 1983 is as follows:
  91

  Home Office PRS estate 1983–88 £K(£ per square foot)

  Rent

  Rates

  Maintenance

  PSA Administration

  Fuel and Utilities

  1983–84

  18,128

  10,870

  4,659

  1,019

  2,408

  (11·48)

  (6·88)

  (2·95)

  (0·63)

  (1·53)

  1984–85

  19,309

  11,614

  5,262

  1,159

  2,657

  (10·83)

  (6·51)

  (2·95)

  (0·65)

  (1·49)

  1985–86

  20,538

  11,527

  5,719

  1,264

  3,054

  (11·98)

  (6·72)

  (3·34)

  (0·74)

  (1·78)

  1986–87

  21,692

  9,329

  5,844

  1,214

  2,854

  (12·63)

  (5·43)

  (3·40)

  (0·71)

  (1·66)

  1987–88

  22,401

  9,059

  5,336

  1,159

  2,806

  (13·33)

  (5·39)

  (3·18)

  (0·69)

  (1·67)

  1988–89

  22,811

  9,293

  7,159

  1,587

  2,569

  (15·26)

  (6·22)

  (4·79)

  (1·06)

  (1·72)

  Home Office—Prisons estate 1983–88

  £k

  Year

  Rent

  Rates

  Maintenance

  Heating fuels

  Utilities

  1983–84

  524

  4,179

  22,290

  13,272

  11,300

  1984–85

  375

  4,461

  25,183

  15,724

  11,673

  1985–86

  246

  5,177

  22,535

  13,375

  13,205

  1986–87

  547

  6,758

  20,474

  8,294

  15,982

  1987–88

  520

  7,724

  24,129

  8,042

  15,878

  1988–89

  577

  8,750

  27,344

  9,643

  16,528

  Home Office–Non PRS Miscellaneous estate 1983–88

  £k

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total property costs

  3,196

  3,214

  3,312

  4,942

  5,376

  5,594

  Departmental Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last revaluation of plant and equipment employed by his Department was carried out; and what plant and equipment asset replacement charges are incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not the general Home Office practice to revalue its plant and equipment, or to calculate asset replacement charges, although a depreciation charge is calculated in certain parts of the Department where trading accounts are produced.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his response to Communn na Gaidhlig's report on Gaelic broadcasting, in particular, its call for a Gaelic broadcasting council;

  (2) what conclusions he has reached on the report by Dr. Cento Veljanovski entitled "The Case for a Gaelic Broadcasting Service".

  Mr. Renton
  We are considering carefully all the representations made in response to the White Paper on broadcasting.

  Bail
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostel places are available in England and Wales.
  92
  Mr. John Patten
  There are 18 specialist bail hostels providing 243 places. In addition, there are 81 hostels providing 1,647 places either for persons subject to a probation order for bailees. Over the next two years, 440 bail hostel places will be created.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of all defendants who appeared before the courts in England and Wales in 1987 and 1988 were bailed(a) with and (b) without conditions;

  (2) how many persons during 1987 and 1988 who were remanded into custody in England and Wales at a first hearing were subsequently bailed;

  (3) how many persons who had been charged with a summary offence were remanded in custody in England and Wales during the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information, which may be incomplete, relates to those remanded on bail or in custody during magistrates courts hearings or at committal to the Crown court and is shown in tables 8.5 and 8.7 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1987", respectively. Reliable information is not available centrally on whether conditions were attached to bail or on how many of those initially remanded in custody were subsequently bailed.

  Remand
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons who
  93
  were remanded in custody during 1987 and 1988 in gaol in England and Wales emanated from an ethnic minority; and what percentage was eventually acquitted, not proceeded against or given a non-custodial sentence.

  Persons received into prison service establishments in England and Wales as unsentenced prisoners, by outcome of court proceedings and ethnic origin 1987.

  Percentage1

  Outcome

  White

  West Indian Guyanese African

  Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed Orgin

  Other, not recorder, refused

  All persons

  Found not guilty or not proceeded against

  4

  9

  6

  6

  6

  5

  Non-custodial or freed on rising2

  30

  25

  26

  31

  28

  29

  Received under sentence

  52

  45

  47

  47

  24

  51

  Ultimate disposal not reccorder

  13

  21

  21

  16

  42

  15

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  (Number of receptions)

  (56,154)

  (6,506)

  (1,317)

  (1,423)

  (1,198)

  (66,598)

  (Percentage of receptions)

  (84·3)

  (9·8)

  (2·0)

  (2·1)

  (1·8)

  (100·0)

  1 Provisional figures; as later information is now available the figures for all persons have been revised from those published in table 2·6 of Prison statistics, England and Wales (Cm. 547).

  2 Persons freed on rising are those who were sentenced to immediate custody of such a length, that it had already been served on remand.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary for State of the Home Department what percentage of males and females who were remanded in custody in England and Wales in 1987 and 1988 were eventually either acquitted, not proceeded against or given a non-custodial sentence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available information for 1987 is given in the table. Information for 1988 is not a reliable guide because for a large proportion of the prisoners the outcome of court proceedings is not yet recorded.

  Persons received into prison service establishments in England and Wales as unsenlenced prisoners by outcome of court proceedings and sex 1987.

  1Percentage

  Outcome

  Males

  Females

  Not guilty or not proceeded against

  5

  5

  Given a non-custodial sentence or freed on rising2

  29

  39

  Received under sentence

  52

  36

  Ultimate disposal not recorded

  15

  20

  TOTAL

  100

  100

  (Number of receptions)

  (63,349)

  (3,249)

  1 Provisional figures, as later information is now available the figures have been revised from those published in table 2·6 of Prison statistics, England and Wales (Cm. 547).

  2 Persons freed on rising are those who were sentenced to immediate custody of such length that it had already been served on remand.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to remand prisoners' rights and privileges since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  From 1983 all unconvicted prisoners have been allowed to send two letters a week at public expense (previously they had to pay for them if they had private cash). In 1986 regional directors were given discretion to approve variations at particular establishments in arrangements for daily visits by relatives and friends, provided that an aggregate entitlement of at least one and half hours' visiting time per week was maintained
  94
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information for 1988 is not a reliable guide because for a large proportion of the prisoners the outcome of court proceedings is not yet recorded.

  The latest available information for 1987 is given in the table.

  for each unconvicted prisoner and that weekend visits were available at least fortnightly. In 1988 the unconvicted prisoners' privilege of having food and drink brought in by relatives or friends was withdrawn.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons committed suicide in gaol in England and Wales during a period of remand during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 27 in 1987 and 18 in 1988. In addition, the inquest on the apparent suicide of one remand prisoner in 1988 remains to be held.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons died in gaol in England and Wales during a period of remand during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 33 in 1987 and 25 in 1988. In addition, in 1987 six and in 1988 seven remand prisoners died in outside hospitals to which they had been transferred because of serious illness.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many psychiatric reports were prepared on remand prisoners in England and Wales in 1988 or for the latest year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information relates only to reports made under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 recommending transfer to psychiatric or special hospitals, and does not distinguish between sentenced and unsentenced prisoners. In the year ending 31 March 1988, 206 such reports were prepared.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons deemed psychiatrically ill were remanded in custody in England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information relates only to populations and not to numbers received. On 30
  95
  September 1988 a total of 158 unsentenced prisoners in England and Wales were considered by medical officers to meet the criteria for detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. Of these, 150 were considered to be mentally ill, five were considered to be mentally impaired and three were considered to be suffering from psychopathic disorder, as defined in the Act.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were remanded in gaols in England and Wales for the latest year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1988, the provisional number of receptions into prison service establishments was 58,300 for untried prisoners and 17,300 for convicted unsentenced prisoners. These figures exclude those received into police cells and not subsequently received into a prison service establishment.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average time spent waiting for trial for male and female remand prisoners in gaols in England and Wales for 1986, 1987 and 1988;

  (2) what was the average time spent waiting for trial for male and female remand prisoners in gaols in England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest readily available information was published in table 2.1 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 1987 (Cm. 547), a copy of which is in the Library. Provisional data for 1988 indicate very little change for males but a further increase for females.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average remand population of gaols in England and Wales during 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On average there were 8,797 untried and 1,664 convicted and unsentenced prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales in 1988. In addition 982, most of whom were untried, were held in police cells. Further information was published in tables 3 and 4 of "The Prison Population in 1988" (Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 12/89), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the remand population in gaols in England and Wales for the latest date available and for a similar date in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Remand population in custody in England and Wales on 31 March 1986 to 1989

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Prison service establishments:

  Untried

  8,115

  8,770

  8,387

  8,939

  Convicted unsentenced

  1,339

  1,611

  1,602

  1,760

  Prison cells1

  62

  380

  1,078

  71

  Total

  9,516

  10,761

  11,067

  10,770

  1 On 31 March 1986, 1987 and 1989 all those held in police cells are assumed to be remand prisoners; it is estimated that on 31 March 1988 a further 230 were held in police cells.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the remand population in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  96
  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 23 January 1989 at column 393.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet completed his further consideration as to who will bear the cost of the West Midlands police inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 12 May at column 569.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors he takes into account when allocating a prisoner to a particular prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Allocation decisions are taken in the light of information relating to the nature of the prisoner's offence, sentence length, previous prison record if relevant, suitability for particular types of accommodation and regime, home area or that of likely visitors, educational and training needs or potential and any special needs which are identified. The aim is to make the best use of the prison accommodation available at the time while meeting the requirements of security and control and the needs of the individual prisoner.

  Public Order (Football Grounds)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males over the age of 65 years and females over the age of 60 years have been(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted of offences relating to public order at football grounds in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the form requested is not available as the location of alleged offences is not recorded centrally. However, records available to me show no convictions for indictable public order offences in 1987 for males over 65 or females over 60. To provide such figures for earlier years would involve disproportionate costs. Information is not available centrally on the age of adult offenders convicted of summary public order offences. Nor is corresponding information available on those arrested or charged with public order offences.

  Race Equality Programme (Brent)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when approval will be given to the payment of the section 11 grant for the funding of the Brent development programme for race equality.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following Sir David Lane's inquiry into Brent's development programme for racial equality, the Home Office wrote to the London borough of Brent on 26 May 1988 requiring a number of undertakings to be given before a decision on whether grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 could be reached. The local authority replied to that letter on 30 September 1988, indicating that the council required clarification of some of the undertakings. These were discussed at a meeting between Home Office officials and Brent officers on 30
  97
  November. As a result the director of education wrote to the Home Office on 9 January 1989 with the authority's first detailed response to the undertakings. On 6 April the Home Office wrote again seeking explanation of a number of points in that response. The authority's reply was received in the Home Office on 10 May. It is at present being considered and the authority will be informed when a decision has been reached.

  Overseas Residents (Voting)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce proposals to alter the franchise qualifications for Britons resident abroad; and whether these changes will be introduced in time for those affected to register to vote in the next general election.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question of 2 February 1989 at column 383.

  Political Asylum (Kurds)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kurds from Turkey have entered Britain in the past 14 days seeking political asylum or refugee status; what steps he is taking to deal with the cases; and if he intends to give financial or other help to the London borough of Hackney and other boroughs to provide temporary or permanent accommodation and maintenance.

  Mr. Renton
  We received 456 applications for asylum for Turkish nationals arriving at ports in the 14 days to 11 May. It is not yet clear how many of the applicants are Kurds. Arrangements are in hand for them to be interviewed individually so that the merits of their asylum claims can he assessed and decisions reached as soon as possible.

  The Home Office has no plans to reimburse local authorities for provision that they have decided to incur.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he treats as legitimate uses to which electronic surveillance devices may be put.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Younger report on privacy reported on the widely accepted view that there was a vast range of unobjectionable uses for technical surveillance devices. Examples include their use by shops and other enterprises in order to prevent crime.

  Mr. A (Passport)
  Mr Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister of State the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Stretford concerning M. A. Home Office reference A 429590; and if he will make a statement on the delay in replying and the delays in returning Mr. A's passport.

  Mr. Renton
  The delay in this case has been caused by the need to make a detailed investigation. I shall be writing to the hon. Member shortly. The two passports in the case to which he has referred have been returned to the holder and his settled immigration status confirmed.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the conviction of Mr. Colin Wallace for manslaughter in the light of the evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice set out in the book entitled "Who Framed Colin Wallace" by Mr. Paul Foot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We will consider, in accordance with normal policy, whether Mr. Foot's book contains any evidence or other consideration of substance which might call into question the safety of Mr. Wallace's conviction and which has not been considered by the courts.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision exists for public access to the marked electoral registers used by presiding officers in parliamentary and local elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the appropriate elections rules, the marked copies of the registers used by presiding officers at a parliamentary or local government election are open to public inspection, on payment of a fee, after the close of the poll at such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, though not on the day of the poll itself. Also a candidate, his appointed election agent or polling agent may, within the polling station, mark on his own copy of the register the name of each elector who receives a ballot paper.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years;

  (2) how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.

  Mr Hurd
  Information on TV expenditure in the form requested is not held by my Department, and I understand that it is not available centrally through the Central Office of Information.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 9 March,Official Report, column 607, whether he has received Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend receives a report on the implementation of Home Office circular 52/1988 in each force area as part of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's annual inspection report of the area.

  Child Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will update his answer of 26 January,Official Report, columns 670–71, showing the total amount spent by his Department on research into the sexual abuse of children in each of the years since 1979, listing :he name of each project, its cost and completion date.
  99
  Mr. John Patten
  The only information additional to my answer of 26 January is that the research project on children as victims of crime will be completed in September 1989 at a total cost of £98,000 for which the sums of £7,265 and £50,743 were spent respectively in the financial years ending March 1988 and 1989. The research project to examine the effectiveness of live TV links for child witnesses began on 1 February 1989 and will be completed in January 1990 at a cost of £45,000.

  Pet Animals (Protection)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to ban tail docking, ear cropping, debarking and declawing of dogs in accordance with article 8 of the European convention on the protection of pet animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The representations that we have received about article 10 of the European convention for the protection of pet animals have all been opposed to the ear cropping, devocalisation, declawing and deranging of dogs. The Government's decision about this and the tail docking of dogs will be announced when the current consultations have been completed.

  London Transport (Violence)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken by the Metropolitan police to arrest and prosecute the persons referred to in the House of Lords Hansard, 4 April, column 1003, who threatened violence against London Transport unless posters advertising holidays in northern Cyprus were withdrawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Metropolitan police have not been asked to undertake any investigations into this matter. The policing of London Transport is a matter for the British Transport police, who are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the complement of medical officers at the Risley remand centre; what is the actual number of staff in post; and if he will give comparable figures for(a) five years ago and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Authorised strength

  Staff in Post

  1 January 1979

  One Senior Medical Officer

  1

  Four Medical Officers (full-time)

  3

  Two Medical Officers (part-time)

  2

  1 January 1984

  One Senior Medical Officer

  1

  Three Medical Officers (full-time)

  2

  Two Medical Officers (part-time)

  2

  1 January 1989 (to date)

  One Senior Medical Officer

  1

  Three Medical Officers (full-time)

  2

  Two Medical Officers (part-time)

  2

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make further funds available for the prison department to train medical officers.
  100
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The funds available in the present financial year for in-service training of prison medical officers will enable the Department to maintain a programme broadly commensurate with that undertaken in 1988–89. Many of the training needs of this specialist group are best met by facilitating attendance at externally organised courses. The financial allocation to the director of prison medical services to meet the cost of course fees of health care staff, including medical officers, will allow for expansion of this important area of training. Governors, who are responsible for meeting some of the travel and subsistence costs of training for field staff, have been reminded that specialist training is a high priority.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the numbers of inmates in the Risley remand centre known to have received in-patient treatment for psychiatric illness(a) 10 years ago, (b) five years ago and (c) in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret such statistics are not routinely collated and are not available in respect of past years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by prison and remand centre in England and Wales(a) the number of permanent nursing staff in post and (b) where these are below establishment post and by how many; what recruitment programmes are in progress or being planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available staffing information is given in the following table. A national campaign to recruit men and women with a nursing qualification to train as hospital officers is planned for the near future. Further campaigns will be mounted as necessary. Twenty-three nurses already so recruited are in training. In addition, 75 prison officers have been accepted for hospital officer training. Further volunteers will be sought as required. Locally targeted campaigns to recruit nurses for Holloway prison and Risley remand centre are being progressed separately.

  Establishment

  Approved strength

  Staff in Post

  Vacancies

  Acklington

  5

  6

  —

  Albany

  5

  4

  1

  Aldington

  2

  2

  —

  Ashford'

  15

  13

  2

  Ashwell

  2

  2

  Askham Grange

  8·5

  8

  0·5

  Aylesbury

  4

  3

  1

  Bedford1

  10

  9

  1

  Birmingham1

  31

  27

  4

  Blantyre House

  2

  2

  —

  Blundeston

  5

  4

  1

  Bristol1

  18

  16

  2

  Brixton1

  93

  64

  29

  Brockhill/Hewell Grange1

  7

  6

  1

  Buckley Hall

  2

  2

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  11

  8

  3

  Camp Hill

  6

  6

  —

  Canterbury1

  10

  7

  3

  Cardiff1

  16

  17

  —

  Channings Wood

  4

  4

  —

  Chelmsford1

  15

  14

  1

  Coldingley

  4

  4

  —

  Cookham Wood

  5

  4

  1

  Dartmoor

  11

  10

  1

  Deerbolt

  4

  4

  —

  Dorchester1

  3

  3

  —

  101

  Establishment

  Approved strength

  Staff in post

  Vacancies

  Dover

  3

  3

  —

  Drake Hall

  9

  7

  2

  Durham1

  27

  27

  —

  Down View1

  6

  2

  4

  East Sutton Park

  2·5

  2·5

  —

  Eastwood Park

  2

  2

  —

  Erlestoke

  2

  2

  —

  Everthorpe

  4

  4

  —

  Exeter1

  13

  13

  —

  Featherstone

  3

  3

  —

  Feltham

  30

  25

  5

  Ford

  4

  4

  —

  Frankland

  14

  12

  2

  Full Sutton

  10

  10

  —

  Gartree

  12

  11

  —

  Garth

  7

  7

  —

  Glen Parva1

  29

  27

  2

  Gloucester1

  5

  5

  —

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  55

  37·5

  17·5

  Guys Marsh

  2

  2

  —

  Haslar

  2

  2

  —

  Hatfield

  2

  2

  —

  Haverigg

  3

  3

  —

  Highpoint

  8

  8

  —

  Hindley1

  8

  7

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  6

  5

  1

  Holloway1

  84

  48·5

  35·5

  Hull1

  18

  17

  1

  Huntercombe/Finnamore Wood

  4

  3

  1

  Kingston-Portsmouth

  2

  2

  —

  Kirkham

  2

  2

  —

  Kirklevington

  2

  2

  —

  Lancaster

  2

  2

  —

  Latchmere House1

  2

  2

  —

  Leeds1

  25

  25

  —

  Leicester1

  12

  12

  —

  Lewes1

  13

  13

  —

  Leyhill

  3

  2

  1

  Lincoln1

  21

  19

  2

  Littlehey

  10

  9

  1

  Liverpool1

  49

  44

  5

  Long Lartin

  7

  7

  —

  Lowdham Grange

  2

  2

  —

  Low Newton1

  10

  10

  —

  Lindholme

  10

  9

  1

  Maidstone

  8

  6

  2

  Manchester1

  35

  32

  3

  The Mount

  6

  5

  1

  New Hall1

  10

  6

  4

  Northallerton

  2

  2

  —

  Northeye

  4

  4

  —

  North Sea Camp

  1

  1

  —

  Norwich1

  26

  25

  1

  Nottingham

  3

  3

  —

  Onley

  3

  3

  —

  Oxford/Campsfield House1

  8

  5

  3

  Parkhurst

  50

  50

  —

  Pentonville1

  20

  20

  —

  Preston1

  6

  6

  —

  Pucklechurch1

  16

  11

  5

  Ranby

  3

  3

  —

  Reading1

  7

  7

  —

  Risley1

  50

  43

  7

  Rochester1

  12

  11

  1

  Rudgate

  2

  2

  —

  Send

  2

  2

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  2

  2

  —

  Shrewsbury1

  3

  3

  —

  Stafford

  15

  15

  —

  Standford Hill/Swaleside

  11

  9

  2

  Stoke Heath

  4

  2

  2

  Styal

  16

  13

  3

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  4

  4

  —

  Swansea1

  9

  9

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  3

  3

  —

  102

  Establishment

  Approved strength

  Staff in post

  Vacancies

  Thorn Cross

  3

  3

  —

  Thorp Arch

  2

  2

  —

  Usk

  2

  2

  —

  The Verne/Portland

  4

  4

  —

  Wakefield

  24

  24

  —

  Wandsworth1

  48

  40

  8

  Wellingborough

  5

  5

  —

  Werrington

  2

  2

  —

  Wetherby

  2

  2

  —

  Whatton

  3

  3

  —

  Winchester1

  21

  21

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs1

  27

  23

  4

  Wymott

  6

  5

  —

  Wayland

  4

  3

  —

  1 Establishments taking unconvicted/unsentenced prisoners or Immigration Act detainees.

  Prisons and Remand Centres (Food Poisoning)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by prison and remand centre in England and Wales for the last 12 months, the number of occasions that food poisoning has been reported; what action was taken; when was the last occasion that they had been inspected by an outside health inspector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1 May 1988 there have been four reported outbreaks of suspected food poisoning at prison service establishments. These were as follows:

  Date

  HMP Cardiff

  June 1988

  HMP Lincoln

  August 1988

  HMYOI Hollesley Bay Colony

  January 1989

  HMP Ashwell

  April 1989

  The local authority environmental health officers (EHOs) attended each establishment to help in tracing the source of the outbreak and to suggest measures to prevent further spread of infection.

  Informal visits to establishments by local authority EHOs are encouraged, but no central record of these visits is maintained. None of the four establishments had been visited by local authority EHOs prior to the reported outbreaks of food poisoning. Each establishment had, however, been visited by Home Office health and safety officers or officers from the Home Office supply and transport catering group. All officers carrying out these inspections are professionally qualified. Their visits took place on the following dates:

  Date

  HMP Cardiff

  March 1988

  HMP Lincoln

  July 1987

  HMYOI Hollesley Bay Colony

  December 1988

  HMP Ashwell

  November 1988

ENERGY

  Insulation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has completed his plans to revive the neighbourhood energy action programme for community insulation schemes; and if he will make a statement.
  103
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information is still being collected, but we believe that the special measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are having a positive impact. We will continue to monitor the position closely.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the contribution to Britain's energy requirements resulting from draught proofing and loft insulation in each of the past 10 years; and what targets he has set for such work in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The extent to which improved loft insulation and draught proofing lead to lower demand for energy depends upon a number of factors including the extent to which consumers opt at least in part for greater warmth rather than simply saving energy. An assessment of the sort requested is not available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what steps he has taken to ensure that adequate numbers of operatives and trainees are available to undertake community energy action work in draughtproofing and loft insulation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has responsibility for employment training, announced on 10 February a special package of measures to help community insulation projects. Those measures now appear to be having a positive impact.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the energy savings that would accrue if all existing buildings were retro-fitted to bring them up to the standard of the proposed new building regulations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In theory bringing all existing domestic buildings up to the standards of thermal insulation set out in the proposed new building regulations would lead to a reduction in demand of approximately 9 million tonnes of oil equivalent. However, achievement of such standards would not be cost effective or possible in many cases, particularly with older buildings. Equivalent estimates for reductions in demand in respect of non-domestic buildings are not available.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the potential savings in energy demand, if all United Kingdom residential properties had 6 in of roof insulation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In theory the installation of 6 in of insulation in all domestic buildings with accessible lofts could lead to a potential annual saving of some 1·3 million tonnes of oil equivalent. However, as householders would be likely to take part of the potential saving in greater warmth the actual saving would be lower.

  Grimethorpe Reactor
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his decision on funding the next stage of research and development into the Grimethorpe pressurised fluidised-bed reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal is presently seeking further private sector support for this project. In the light of the outcome of this, the Government will make a final decision on funding.

  Subsidence (Compensation)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what resources he has agreed with the National Coal Board to allocate for compensation for subsidence.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is a matter for British Coal to determine the allocation of resources within the external finance limit agreed with Government. At the end of 1987–88 the provision in its accounts for subsidence compensation stood at £260 million. In 1987–88 repair of and compensation for subsidence damage cost the corporation almost £50 million.

  Hinkley C Inquiry
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the report of the Hinkley C inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The timing of his report is a matter for the inquiry inspector.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the environmental benefits of nuclear power.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has had in favour of expanding nuclear power on environmental grounds.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has had from people opposed to expanding nuclear power on environmental grounds.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have received a number of representations on all aspects of nuclear power.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the percentage of electricity to be generated by nuclear power by 1995; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power in England and Wales in 1987–88 was 14·4 per cent. The percentage for 1995 will depend on a number of factors, including the load factor of individual nuclear power stations and operational decisions taken by the CEGB's successors.

  Energy Use
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on trends in the ratio of energy usage to gross domestic product since 1973.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In terms of primary energy, in 1973 the United Kingdom consumed 1·36 tonnes of coal equivalent per £1,000 of GDP (at 1985 factor cost). In 1988 the ratio had fallen to 1 tonne of coal equivalent per £1,000 of GDP in the same price terms. This represents a reduction of 26·5 per cent. or 2 per cent. per annum.

  Electricity Generation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's latest estimate of the fuel cycle costs of(a) nuclear and (b) coal-fired electricity generation in the present financial year.
  105
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been advised by the Central Electricity Generating Board that, for 1987–88, their estimate of fuel cycle costs for nuclear generation was 1·77 p/Kwh and coal-fired generation 1·97 p/Kwh.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what date Her Majesty's Government first made public that the cost of electricity from the Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear stations exceeded that of coal-fired generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This was first made public in the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 15 December 1988 at column 680.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he expects to bring forward to change the mix of fuels used in electricity generation(a) before that industry is sold, (b) while it is in the course of being sold and (c) after it has been sold.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Changes to the mix of fossil fuels used in electricity generation will remain a matter for the industry, as will the choice of non-fossil fuels used to meet the major part of the non-fossil fuel obligation provided for the Electricity Bill now before Parliament. I announced on 5 April the Government's intention that up to 600 MW of the non-fossil fuel obligation should be set aside specifically for renewables.

  Energy Technology Support Unit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the report of Dr. Barry Dale of the Energy Department's energy technology support unit.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I believe that the report to which the hon. Member is referring is a paper presented by Dr. Dale to an International Energy Agency experts seminar in Paris on 12 to14 April.

  He concluded that it appeared to be technically feasible to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by a significant amount but that this would not be an easy task and a combination of measures and technologies would be required.

  Sizewell B Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost per megawatt saved of energy efficiency measures; and what is the cost per megawatt of the Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The cost of saving a megawatt by investment in energy efficiency schemes varies widely. Investment in energy efficiency is not a direct substitute for investment in energy supply; improvements in energy efficiency may be taken by domestic consumers in increased levels of comfort. The CEGB have advised us that the expected cost in real terms of Sizewell B remains at the level shown in the 1986–87 accounts which is £1·45 million/megawatt.

  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce firm proposals for the neighbourhood energy action programme.
  106
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 10 February were designed to help overcome the difficulties which some community insulation projects faced in making the transition to employment training. We are now in the process of monitoring the impact of those measures on the project network.

  Gas Supply
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Director General of Gas Supply; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I met the Director General of Gas Supply last month and we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on gas supply.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Gas in November when a range of issues were discussed.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will review his Department's spending on energy conservation in the light of the continuing fears of global warming.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The budget of the energy efficiency office, like all Government expenditure, is reviewed annually in the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's latest estimate of potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000, 2010 and 2020 in the energy sector.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's latest estimate of the potential reduction in the output of greenhouse gases by the United Kingdom energy sector by the years 2000, 2010 and 2020.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Future emissions will depend on many factors, which are hard to predict, such as economic growth, developments in technology, investment patterns and consumer choice. A broad analysis by the energy technology support unit, presented at the Prime Minister's recent seminar on climate change, indicated both the possibilities and difficulties of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department has made of the different contributions to reducing global warming of energy conservation and nuclear power.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I believe that both nuclear power and improved energy efficiency have an important role to play in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. No single solution is sufficient.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking, and what further measures he proposes, to reduce energy consumption and to promote energy efficiency.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish proposals to encourage energy efficiency and conservation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The energy efficiency office will be targeting its activities on key areas of energy use and offering advice backed by technical support. In particular it will be emphasising the work of regional energy efficiency officers at the local level. The EEO will also be offering a new best practice programme which will give industrial and commercial consumers authoritative and independent advice on how efficiently they use energy and how they can improve to match the best in their sector. In addition the Secretary of State for Energy is leading a campaign to increase the efficiency of energy use in the public sector.

  In the domestic sector the Government continue to help pensioners and low-income households through the community insulation programme and the homes insulation scheme.

  Further measures to encourage energy efficiency are included in the Electricity Bill. The Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply will have a duty to promote energy efficiency and economy on the part of licensed electricity suppliers who will be required to provide guidance on the efficient use of electricity.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for energy conservation arising from the Downing street seminar on 26 April.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have described the new approach of the energy efficiency office in my replies to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 30 January at column 13, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on 7 March at column 480.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the United Kingdom's total national energy needs he expects to be met by the private sector following privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  If the market shares held by the various fuel producers remain unchanged, then some 88 per cent. of final energy consumption will be met by the private sector after privatisation, compared with 74 per cent. in 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the latest cost of advertising, publicity and public relations for the electricity industry generally and for its privatisation up to the date of the proposed share issue.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Expenditure by the industry on advertising, publicity and public relations is a matter for the industry itself. Total costs up to the date of the proposed share issue will depend on many factors yet to be decided, and cannot therefore reasonably be forecast at this stage.

  British Coal
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the manager of British Coal, Scotland; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the chairman of British Coal. We have no plans to meet British Coal's Scottish manager at present.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the manager of British Coal's north-eastern region; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no such plans at present. However, my right hon. Friend and I do, of course, meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the manager of British Coal in Scotland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I last met the manager of British Coal in Scotland on 6 October 1988 during my underground visit to Castlebridge mine, when I was informed about the corporation's plans for the colliery.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what would be the reduction in CO2 emissions if existing boilers were replaced by gas-condensing boilers in (a) the domestic sector and (b) public buildings.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I estimate that, on average, the replacement of an existing domestic gas fired boiler with a condensing model would reduce the boiler consumption by 15 to 20 per cent. The carbon dioxide emitted by the boiler would be reduced by a similar amount. For public buildings the equivalent figure would be around 10 per cent. An additional emission reduction would accrue if the original boiler were fired by coal or oil due to the different carbon content of the fuels.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he expects to bring forward, following the 26 April 10 Downing street seminar, to control carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000, 2010 or 2020.
  109
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Electricity privatisation will encourage greater efficiency in the supply and use of electricity; will guarantee a level of non-fossil generation, will encourage the introduction of new more efficient and less polluting technology, and will encourage electricity generation from gas. A series of tranches of generation capacity reserved exclusively for renewable sources will be set throughout the 1990s. This will guarantee renewables an additional special status within the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Electricity (Bulk Supplies)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's most up-to-date estimate of the comparative cost of bulk supplies of electricity to the steel industry and other heavy industrial consumers in Britain and those for major competitors in the European Community.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 10 April at column 335.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  BNFL has contracts valued at some £4 billion, £2 billion of which are with Japan. These will pay for its investment in THORP and will be in a good position to compete for business in the future.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board: and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman-designate of National Power; and what issues will be discussed.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet Lord Marshall to discuss matters of common interest.

  Methane Gas
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the prospects for the burning of methane gas in power generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions on fossil fuel choice are matters for the industry. Virtually all the major independent generation projects known to my Department, totalling over 6 GW of capacity, are proposing to use natural gas. Moreover, the CEGB has recently applied for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's consent to construct four gas-fired power stations.

  I am also encouraged by the prospects for smaller landfill gas generation projects. These have the potential to make a significant contribution by the end of the century.

  Monktonhall and Bilston Glen Collieries
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the future of Monktonhall and Bilston Glen collieries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has received one written representation from the Coalfield Communities Campaign.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for policies to promote the use of combined heat and power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The creation of a competitive power market following the privatisation of the public electricity supply industry should ensure that combined heat and power is well placed to take advantage of the new structure. There will be new powers to allow CHP operators to lay heat mains in streets. We are also seeking to ensure that independent generators, including CHP operators, will be rated on a comparable basis with the rest of the electricity supply industry. My Department has provided substantial support for CHP schemes in the past and will continue to promote investment in CHP within the energy efficiency office's new "Best Practice" programme.

  United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of UKOOA, and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) from time to time. These meetings cover a range of North sea-related issues.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much plutonium from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority stock pile since November 1964, has(a) been leased and retained, (b) been leased and returned and (c) sold to France for use in its Rapsodie test fast reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No plutonium from the stockpile of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has been sold or leased for the Rapsodie test fast reactor since May 1979.

  Independent Electricity Producers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Association of Independent Electricity Producers; what was discussed; and what was the outcome of the meeting.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I last met the AEIP on 5 May, when we had a useful discussion on independent electricity generation.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.
  111
  Mr. Parkinson
  Arrangements for purchasing advertising air time for this Department are handled by the Central Office of Information. The information requested is not held by my Department and I understand that it has not been compiled centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zambia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table

  Gross public expenditure £ thousand

  Grants £ thousand

  Overseas Development Administration loans £ thousand

  Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure1 £ thousand

  1979

  29,159

  10,784

  17,875

  500

  1980

  20,696

  12,604

  5,850

  2,242

  1981

  24,119

  12,713

  4,751

  6,654

  1982

  14,237

  10,646

  912

  2,679

  1983

  15,485

  11,121

  2,154

  2,210

  1984

  32,901

  11,170

  4,756

  16,975

  1985

  25,552

  11,901

  6,495

  7,157

  1986

  35,351

  28,062

  4,213

  3,076

  1987

  24,825

  23,720

  663

  442

  19882

  Source: British aid statistics.

  1 Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure on loans and equity investments.

  2 1988 figures will be available in due course.

  Outstanding Commonwealth Development Corporation loans at 31 March 1989 totalled £38·1

  Loan title

  Total amount outstanding £ thousand

  Final repayment due date

  Interest rate per cent.

  Zambia Exchequer Loan (£1 million issued 17 April 1962)

  78

  11 April 1987

  6·625

  Zambia Exchequer Loan (£750,000 issued 27 June 1963)

  103

  27 June 1988

  5·5

  Zambia Exchequer Loan (£1·25 million issued 31 March 1964)

  92

  31 March 1989

  6

  Zambia Development Loan 1973

  648

  30 June 1998

  Free

  Zambia Loan 1978

  8,231

  31 March 2003

  2

  Zambia Loan No. 2 1978

  19,366

  8 August 2003

  2

  Zambia Loan 1980

  5,094

  24 January 2005

  2

  Zambia Programme Aid Loan 1983

  4,490

  1 June 2008

  2

  Zambia Programme Loan 1984

  5,161

  1 June 2008

  2

  Zambia Debt Rescheduling 1983

  625

  30 June 1993

  2

  Zambia Debt Rescheduling 1983 (Arrears)

  97

  30 June 1988

  2

  Zambia Debt Rescheduling 1984 (1)

  97

  30 June 1994

  2

  Zambia Debt Rescheduling 1984 (2)

  706

  30 June 1994

  2

  Zambia Debt Rescheduling 1986

  2,527

  30 June 1996

  2

  TOTAL

  47,315

  112
  indicating the extent of United Kingdom assistance to Zambia by way of (a) grants and (b) loans in each of the past 10 years; and what is the sum total of outstanding loans made to Zambia which are repayable, the date by which repayment has to be made, and the level of interest payments on these loans.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  million. A breakdown is not readily available. Details of outstanding debt on Overseas Development Administration loans are as follows:

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

The Lord Trefgarne: Personal Statement
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I wish to make a personal statement.
During Question Time last Friday, and in answer to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I rejected the noble Lord's assertion that there had been a decline in real terms defence expenditure since 1985. I was, I fear, mistaken. While defence expenditure has indeed grown in real terms since 1979, there was a decline in the years immediately following 1985–8 which I should have acknowleded, and I apologise for not doing so.

Inheritance Tax: Residential Accommodation
2.37 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the loss of revenue if a deceased person's principal home were exempted from inheritance tax.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the information is not available in precisely the form requested by my noble friend. To exempt all residential property from inheritance tax on death is estimated to cost around £500 million in a full year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of the fact that the tax on someone's personal home—given the very high valuation based on house property at the moment—is often a serious blow to an individual at a particularly difficult time? Does the Minister not agree that it would be in accordance with the Government's policy of encouraging a nation of home owners to make a concession here?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I appreciate the point that my noble friend makes. The spouse exemption means that neither widows nor widowers need face bills with inheritance taxes. In the case of other beneficiaries who retain the home, tax may be paid by instalments over 10 years. In any circumstance, exempting the residential property from inheritance tax would undesirably narrow the tax base.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that a fairly large sum were to become
916
available to the Chancellor in such circumstances, would the noble Lord not agree that the first action of any responsible government would be to devote whatever sum might be saved to the relief of the 4 million people in our country who today find themselves far worse off than they were in 1979?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has strayed somewhat wide of the point of this Question. A little over £1,090 million is raised by inheritance taxes each year. It is all part of the structure that this Government have evolved since 1979 and which has ensured that the economy of the United Kingdom has restored itself; that people are better off and that we have prudent and sensible government for the first time.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Lord concede that the concession to abolish the inheritance tax between spouses was brought in by a Labour Government and not by the present one?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question is about the present Government. I am quite willing to accept that there have been previous governments of our country. In time they have evolved the entire tax base that we have today.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, perhaps we may return to the original Question. Is it not a fact that if a person owning a house makes a will in which there is joint ownership of the house, in the event of the death of one of the spouses there is no inheritance tax to be paid? Can the Minister say whether that is right?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is just over a third of a century since I last practised as a solicitor. That is the kind of question where I believe particular advice is required since circumstances can vary so much from case to case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's argument about narrowing the tax base, is it not a fact that capital gains tax is excluded in the case of a principal home? Will the Minister not agree that that is a very good precedent for dealing similarly with the inheritance tax?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, about 660,000 people in our country die each year and only about 4 per cent. of the estates pay an inheritance tax. The vast majority of people come outside that tax. About three-quarters of the estates above the threshold include a residential property, and of those the house-owning estates are rather less than half of the value of the estates. So it comes down to a comparatively small figure.
Lord Rees: My Lords, even though the Government are not prepared to contemplate a specific exemption for the principal home, can the Minister say whether in fixing the threshold they will at least take into account the value of the

917
property, which may have diminished unduly in real terms over the past decade?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the basis of the inheritance tax is the value of the property at the time that the estate passes. I do not see how we can fix any other value.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question which is slightly in conflict with those that have so far been asked. Can he say whether it is true that, once we have lost the domestic rate, apart from the inheritance tax the family home in this country will carry no burden of taxation whatsoever? Does the Minister not agree that that is fairly unusual by international standards? Is it not possible that that distorts the pattern of asset ownership in this country and is it not possible—greatly daring!—that in these circumstances there is some kind of a case for the reintroduction of schedule A?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my noble friend will not be in the least surprised if I say to him that I feel his questions are a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. He can expect no less from me.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the tax can be levied only on the basis of valuation. Is he aware that with landed property—tenanted farms, and so on—a percentage of that valuation is taken for taxation purposes? To meet the noble Lord's point, could not, for example, the first 50 per cent. of the valuation be free of inheritance tax? There are precedents.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this also applies in the case of residential homes. For those beneficiaries who retain the home, tax can be paid over 10 years. That, again, is a difference.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it right that the matter of the family home should be complicated by considerations such as whether it is in joint names or whether a will has been made and what is the precise drafting of the will? Could not further consideration be given to the broad merits and fairness of the position?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is difficult to disentangle these matters. Legal requirements, the wording of a will and whether it is a gift may change the whole basis. However, I have heard what my noble friend has said and I shall pass his remarks on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his consideration.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House a little more about payment by instalments? If there are several beneficiaries—let us say four children—and one of them defaults on an instalment plan, what will happen to the liability of the others?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can do no more than repeat an answer I gave to an earlier supplementary question. I am no longer in practice, but I am sure that if the noble Earl wishes to take advice he will get an answer to his; question.

"Green" Initiatives
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What "green" initiatives have been taken since 1987 and what practical measures are in prospect as a result of the recent seminars on the environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we have taken action in many areas. These include the environmental provisions of the Water Bill, international agreements on CFCs and on air and marine pollution, and our major campaign to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded petrol. We have published proposals for major reform of the law of waste disposal and the control of industrial pollution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging and comprehensive Answer. Does he agree that two factors are important? First, there should be not merely a European commitment but a global commitment to strategies for the environment. Secondly, is not a strong economy important in being able to do something about the environment? The Green Party talks caringly about the environment but advocates an economic policy which simply could not deliver.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right that a strong economy makes an enormous difference in being able to carry out the various clean up programmes we have initiated. She is also entirely correct on her other point. We are looking at the convention on climate change. All future activities in major areas must, as with CFCs, take place on a global basis, because we are only a small part of a crowded planet.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding the public pronouncements of the noble Lord and other members of the Government, why are the Government cutting down on essential programmes connected with this vital area? Is it not a fact that the National Environment Research Council has had to cut its scientific staff by 150 as a result of the current budget? Is it not true that the budget of the Energy Efficiency Unit has had to be cut by 5 per cent. as a result of government action? Does the noble Lord not agree that it would be best to act in the public interest and not to seek to make a party political issue of everything?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I was not trying to make a party political point at all. Over the broad range of areas

919
concerning the environment today there will be those where reductions have taken place and others where there have been changes. An example is a doubling of the commitment we made to UNEP at the CFC conference to assist in giving the lead to get a programme to help the world.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, what is the Government's attitude towards initiatives taken in the European Community for improving the environment and dealing with the matters to which this Question refers? One hears that we have been reluctant to join in new initiatives which the EC has recently propounded.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that a large part of what we can do starts at home. An example of which the noble Lord will be well aware is the £1 billion commitment to cleaning up the power stations. If he cares to put down a specific Question about where he feels we have not been helpful in Europe I shall be more than happy to answer it.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my stepson, Robert Swan, arrived at the North Pole yesterday leading an international team from eight different countries? The reason for the visit was to express concern about the ozone layer. That is why he did it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will wish to join with me in extending heartfelt congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, on the achievement of her stepson.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the article which appears in today's edition of The Times about the pollution of the River Avon and other rivers? Further, is it true, as stated in the article, that the Government have told the water authorities to cut down on anti-pollution measures in order to increase the assets before privatisation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have not seen the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, refers. However, I shall endeavour to search for it very shortly.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we agree when he says that we are but a small part of the world scene of users of CFCs? Is he further aware however that we are one of the major producers of CFCs, not only through our own companies but also through their subsidiaries? Can the Minister tell us what is the programme for phasing out the production of CFCs, as against their use, in this country? Is a date fixed for ending their production?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is well aware, the big boost as regards CFCs was the meeting held in Helsinki earlier this month at which governments agreed to phase out CFCs as soon as possible, and not later than the year 2000.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the most serious problems at present is the emission of CO2 gas from power stations and elsewhere, which causes global warming? Is he also aware that many people, including myself, believe that the Government are doing practically nothing to solve the problem by means of energy conservation measures and the production of renewable energy? Can he say whether the Government have better plans in this connection?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most surprised that the noble Lord is unaware of the recent seminar hosted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at which global warming was discussed. It was a very important seminar.

Green Belt Policy
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken since 1979 to preserve and extend the green belt.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have resolutely upheld green belt policy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has demonstrated this commitment by consistently dismissing proposals for inappropriate development in the green belt. Since 1979 the area of approved green belt in England has more than doubled to 4·5 million acres and now covers 14 per cent. of the total land area.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very positive Answer. However, can he say whether there have been any cases where costs have been awarded against developers within the green belt?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently dismissed several proposals for inappropriate development in the green belt. These included proposals for a research and development centre in the West Midlands and proposals for major shopping and leisure facilities in the metropolitan green belt at Wraysbury, Berkshire, and at Bricket Wood near St. Albans. In the last two cases the Secretary of State awarded costs against a prospective developer in favour of the local authority.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent British Rail's Channel Tunnel link will conflict with the green belt policy, especially in Kent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the Channel Tunnel is part of the Transmanche Link and not British Rail.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while no one would disagree that

921
there are advantages in having a general principle as regards the green belt, the situation needs tidying up a little? For example, we have green belts and green wedges. Further, will he agree that if it were possible to make the surrounding boundaries more sensible, and if areas could be put to more sensible use, then that would perhaps not be a bad idea?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. However, there is a problem in that people have tried to allow land to become derelict in green belt areas. That sets a poor example. If planning permission was granted when land was derelict it would encourage others to make land derelict.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, notwithstanding to whom the land affected by the Channel Tunnel rail link belongs, will the Government, if they feel there is risk of a grave misuse of land, consult with the local authorities involved in order to take full cognisance of their views?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will be aware, the vast majority of planning applications are decided by local authorities. In the year 1987–88, 394,000 planning applications were granted by local authorities; against that figure, there were only 7,000 appeals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House what the position is regarding infill sites in green belts; that is, small pockets within the green belt? Can he say whether such policy is decided by the local authority or whether the department has any specific ruling on the matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the basis of decision rests at the start with the district council.

Social Security Payments: Computerisation
2.58 p.m.
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with the strategy to computerise the Department of Social Security's benefit payment systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Department of Social Security's highly complex £1·2 billion strategy for the computerisation of the social security benefit payment systems is proceeding to the accelerated timetable announced on 22nd November 1988. The major systems for the payment of pensions and income support are being piloted in 23 local offices to ensure they are running smoothly before national implementation starts in autumn this year. All central and local offices will be computerised by August 1991.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Can he tell the House what effect the system will have on fraudulent claims?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what matters to claimants, as well as the speed with which their claim is actioned, is accuracy and clarity of explanation. The new computerised departmental central index is already beginning to combat fraud because the computerisation makes it very much easier to check, for example, whether double applications have been made. Installed in the 23 pilot social security offices, the system has exposed a number of bogus claims for income support. We are taking action to ensure that offices yet to receive the system can check suspicious cases with those that already have the system, thus exposing fraudulent claims.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the strategy which he has outlined will have the effect of diminishing queues at local benefit offices and generally improving efficiency?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. As I said, what matters to claimants is the speed, accuracy and clarity with which their claim is actioned. Where the issue of the length of queue arises, certainly a faster throughput of customers in local offices will be achieved.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will computerisation improve the collection of statistics concerning poverty so that Ministers are better informed of the numbers involved?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the statistics on poverty normally come from the family expenditure survey. That is a direct application investigation; it has nothing to do with the number of people claiming social security benefits.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication of the ultimate advantage to the taxpayer of this exercise?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. We anticipate that there will be reduced administration costs benefiting the taxpayer to the tune of about £150 million a year by 1995.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he envisages that there will be redundancy among the staff as a result of the introduction of this system? If so, can he say what steps are being taken to deal with the situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. Clearly some—indeed, a large part—of the figure of £150 million a year will be used as regards the reduction of staff. We have given staff a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the operational strategy; that is, this computerisation project. Staff have accepted that fact. It is envisaged that by 1995 or thereabouts there will be something in the region of 20,000 fewer staff in local offices.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Hesketh will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the future of the Rose Theatre.
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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill and consideration on Report of the Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Bill will be taken.

Water Bill
3 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: 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 Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 192ZA:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:

("Enforcement by local authorities as to supply and quality of drinking water.

.—(1) It shall be the duty of every district and County Council in England and Wales, in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 20 below to enforce within their area the standards of quality and sufficiency of water supplies and the provisions made by or under Chapter II of this Part.
(2) Any local authority shall have power for the purpose of ascertaining whether any condition of drinking water quality or any standards made under Chapter II of this Part has been contravened in relation to the quality, wholesomeness or sufficiency of water supplies—

(a) to take or authorise an officer of the authority to take samples of any water supply and by whatever means is practicable and available to test the quality or sufficiency of such supplies; and

(b) to secure, or authorise an officer of the authority to secure, the provision of any services, accommodation or facilities.

(3) In exercising their functions under this section, a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the Director.
(4) In section 20 below, any reference to the Secretary of State or the Director shall be taken also to include a local authority in the area concerned.").
The noble Lord said: The fifth Marshalled List for the Bill runs to 57 pages, which is slightly more than the first Marshalled List which faced us some two weeks ago. I am not good at classical metaphors but I wonder whether we are facing the task of Sisyphus or whether someone has not put upon us the results of the task of Penelope. However, we shall try as best we can to make progress with the substantial body of amendments set down for today's business.
The amendment reflects the actual position of the responsibilities of local authorities and tries to match those responsibilities with rights. With Amendment No. 192ZA I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 193A, 194Aand 197AB.
Amendment No. 192ZA provides that local authorities shall have a duty to enforce standards under Clause 20, which is the basic enforcement clause in the Bill relating to the standard, quality and sufficiency of water supplies in provisions made under Chapter II of this part. To do so they will of course need to have the power to ascertain whether the drinking water is of sufficient quality and whether the supply is adequate. They will therefore need, under subsection (2)(a), to have the power to take, or authorise the taking of, samples of the water supply and to do whatever is necessary to test the quality or sufficiency of supplies; and, under subsection (2)(b), to secure the provision of the services, accommodation and facilities which are necessary to do the work.
In order that no one shall think that we are proposing revolutionary change to free local authorities at one bound from the constraints of the Secretary of State, I say that we are doing no such thing. Subsection (3) provides that a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, and under subsection (4) we take advantage of the wording of Clause 20 to say that references to the Secretary of State or the director shall be taken also to include a local authority in the area concerned. That is a necessary corollary of other parts of the amendment.
Amendment No. 193A has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I shall leave him to explain it.
Amendment No. 194A relates to the statutory requirement. At the moment Clause 20(3) provides that the Secretary of State or the director shall have regard to any loss or damage caused before proceeding with the implementation of the statutory requirements. The statutory requirement to secure the adequate quality and sufficiency of water must be the prime consideration. The Secretary of State ought not to have to have regard to loss or damage before seeking to enforce that. What penalty is then imposed on a water undertaker for breach of the statutory requirements in a case where there is no loss or damage is another matter, and the Secretary of State may well decide that pursuit in a severe form is not appropriate, but he must have the power to take action to secure the enforcement of the statutory requirements even though in the end he does not seek to pursue it to its ultimate degree.
Amendment No. 197 AB—I apologise for hesitating, but the numbering has been changed—removes the stipulation that the Secretary of State shall not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, if the company has agreed to take, or is taking, all such steps as appear to him for the time being to be appropriate, and the contraventions were of a trivial nature. The definition of a trivial nature is one to which I shall come in a subsequent amendment. The definition contained in subsection 5(b) is the subject of a

925
government amendment with which we shall be dealing later this afternoon.
The main thrust of the group of amendments to which I am talking is clear. It is that local authorities have a responsibility for checking on compliance as to the supply and quality of drinking water. What is required now is that they should have both the duty and resources to do so. It is necessary to do that because of the Government's hesitation as regards statutory requirements. I referred the Committee to the words used on more than one occasion by the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Howard, in Committee in another place on 14th February this year, when EC Directive 80/778 was under consideration. Mr. Howard expressed considerable doubt as to whether EC requirements, which after all are statutory requirements, or will be statutory requirements when fully implemented, were sufficiently sensible or were too stringent. He said that he would be looking for regulations which were "more sensible"; in other words, less stringent.
If the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State in this case, does not seem to think that the statute makes sense, we need some other protection to ensure that our law and European law is obeyed. It is no good leaving the matter to the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State, under the complex procedures proposed under the Bill, if direct action by the local authority on the spot is needed.
Reference has already been made in Committee to Camelford, where the drinking water of a large community was seriously damaged by an error at the water authority's premises in such a way as to cause subsequent illness to a number of people. Legal action on that matter is now being pursued. There are two lessons to be learnt from that incident: first, that it took a long time for anything to be done about the drinking water in Camelford. For some time the water authority denied that anything was wrong. A local authority would have been able to enforce direct action quickly. The second lesson to be drawn is that there were regulations which could have been enforced, and under the amendment could be enforced more effectively. At the moment, the Secretary of State, by regulation, sets the standards which shall be adhered to and under the Bill only the Secretary of State can enforce compliance. That is not good enough. In case anyone should believe that local authorities do not have the ability to do the work, I remind the Committee that local authorities have inspectorates which are concerned with a wide range of consumer protection matters. The protection of water quality is no different in principle from many of the other functions of local authorities.
Ministers are very fond of reminding Parliament that the water industry can be private in the way that the food industry is private. I wish to remind the Government that the food industry requires and receives a substantial degree of essential regulation by the inspectors of local authorities. They find considerable breaches by the food industry of safety and health standards and they are able to put those right by direct action on the spot without reference back to the Government.
I suggest to the Committee that the procedures proposed in Clause 20 of the Bill, as well as in this part of the Bill generally, are too slow, too cumbersome and too lacking in enforcement power on the ground in the local community to be really effective. I also suggest that this group of amendments would make matters significantly better. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 192ZA as well as Amendment No. 193A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. The first amendment has been very well covered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I wish to reiterate his remarks to the extent that local authorities still have a considerable number of professional people who are qualified to deal with environmental health and other environmental matters through the environmental health officers. They will also probably have ready access to such facilities as laboratories for testing. So it would seem to be rather silly for them to be excluded to any great extent from the actual enforcing of environmental conditions. Also, cases of unwholesome water affecting the areas they represent are certainly their concern.
As regards the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, basically it is designed to make sure that the conditions of appointment as drafted give the director few, if any, powers to enforce compliance after breaches of conditions. There are examples in the Bill, for instance, under Clause 7(3)(a), to ensure that,
"no undue preference is shown, and that there is no undue discrimination, in the fixing of those charges and amounts".
That is dealt with in the draft model instrument of appointment by condition D, which requires the appointee to give the director information about these matters, as is required, but gives him no power to step in if he finds that a company is indulging in price discrimination. What power does he have in these circumstances? Unless the amendment is passed the director will be the most well-informed spectator in what could be termed the water game.
Lord Renton: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would enable the local authorities to share with the Secretary of State the responsibility for enforcement. At present, under Clause 20 of the Bill it is the Secretary of State upon whom that responsibility is firmly placed. Of course, one sympathises with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in wishing to help the local authorities because he has had valuable experience on a local authority in the metropolis. Indeed, all of us have had good reason to feel in certain circumstances—but not all—that local authorities should be given responsibilities and rights in matters which affect local people.
However, I am very much afraid that if the amendment were accepted, instead of the enforcement being carried out by the Secretary of State in accordance with a consistent policy, we might find that local authorities, given the responsibility as regards their own areas, could operate the enforcement provisions somewhat unevenly.
Therefore, subject to what my noble friends on the Front Bench may say, I should have serious doubts about the acceptance of the amendment and the other two Opposition amendments which go with it. As regards the latter, I feel bound to say that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and another in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, himself, by taking provisions out of Clause 20 would seem to me to weaken the power of the Secretary of State under that clause. Therefore, while it is right that we should always consider what part local authorities can play in looking after the interests of the people in their own areas, I think that it would be misguided for us to say that there should be this duality of powers of enforcement.
Let us just consider the position at the moment. Under the present law local authorities have the opportunity for their members to be included on water authorities and I think that each of the water authorities has some local authority members on it. But apart from that, so far as I remember, they do not have powers of enforcement, except such powers as are available to the public as a whole; so we should be creating a new responsibility. Quite frankly, I do not think it would be workable, especially as that responsibility is to overlap with those given to the Secretary of State in Clause 20.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not agree with the proposition because I believe that local authorities have an important role to play in this connection. The local inhabitants are much concerned about the quality of water and its standard. I myself happen to be involved in a trading standards organisation and I know what a great role such organisations play in ensuring that standards are maintained with the wishes of local people. I do not see this as a duality so much as national authorities and local authorities working together to the same end.
I should very much like to see something on these lines incorporated in the legislation in order to show that it is not just a matter of central government direction but is also a matter of concern at the local level. Local government and national government must work very closely together in order to ensure that the standards and quality of this essential product achieve the best results that can be obtained.
Lord Hesketh: The proposed new clause may be considered in a group with Amendments Nos. 194A, 197AB and 193A. Although they are all concerned with enforcement they are not necessarily related.
Taking the new clause first, its effect would be to place a duty on local authorities to enforce compliance by water undertakers with their duty to meet drinking water quality standards set in regulations made under Clause 65 and with certain other duties in Chapter II. The enforcement procedure would be that set out in Clause 20. Powers ancillary to such a duty, such as power to take samples, are also included in the amendment. I understand the intent behind the noble Lord's proposal and I shall address that first before
928
mentioning certain practical problems which we believe exist with the proposal.
Local authorities have a long-standing interest, as the noble Lord pointed out, in the quality of water supplies in their areas, and this interest is continued by the Bill. In particular, Clause 56 continues their existing duty to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies in their areas. We shall be providing in regulations for local authorities to be sent full information on water quality at regular intervals, so there need be no concern that they will have inadequate information about the quality of water supplies in their areas. They will also have a duty to notify the water undertaker whenever they believe that water is unwholesome, insufficient or deteriorating in quality.
Clause 56(3) provides that if local authorities are not satisfied with the undertaker's response, they must inform the Secretary of State. This is a new provision. It provides the link with the new enforcement duty in Clause 20. This duty will be exercised by the Secretary of State in respect of drinking water quality. He will be supported in doing so by a new inspectorate which will be established to carry out thorough technical assessments of compliance with the drinking water regulations. The inspectors will be checking not only compliance with the standards but also progress on improvement programmes settled under subsection (5)(b) of Clause 20, action taken where a standard is infringed, sampling arrangements and frequencies, and analytical methods and quality control. If these investigations show up any shortcomings in complying with the regulations which are not rectified, the Secretary of State will have to consider enforcement action.
The Committee need have no concerns that the Secretary of State will be too remote and ill-informed. He will be provided with very full information on this subject by his inspectors, and also by local authorities, and will thus be well placed to follow up reports of non-compliance.
Moving on to the more practical aspects of the new clause, it is clear that it would immediately create certain problems. First, local authority areas and water supply areas bear no relationship. This raises the question of what an undertaker should do if two or more local authorities take a different view on what should be done about the same supply. A similar issue arises concerning the Secretary of State and a local authority. For instance, an improvement programme may be under way under subsection (5)(b) of Clause 20 which is acceptable to the Secretary of State but not to the local authority. I note that the new clause requires local authorities to take account of any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the director. But guidelines cannot deal with issues of timing, and in any case guidelines are not mandatory. So we could well have a situation where an improvement programme was proceeding in a manner acceptable to the Secretary of State, and all the district councils concerned, yet the county council had made an order under Clause 20 requiring the undertaker to do something quite different.

929
There would be over 400 enforcement authorities with overlapping duties. They would not be accountable to Parliament. We believe this is a recipe for confusion, and not to be recommended. I mention in passing that the subject matter of subsection (2) of the new clause is already amply covered by the powers given to local authorities by Clauses 56 and 59.
I now return to the main theme of the new clause. I summarise the Government's arguments against it as twofold. First, the clause is quite unnecessary as the Bill already provides an important role for local authorities in relation to the quality of water supplies. Secondly, the Secretary of State, advised by the new drinking water inspectorate and by local authorities, is best placed to operate the enforcement provisions in Clause 20. We believe that placing such enforcement powers in the hands of local authorities in these circumstances would create confusion and conflict between all the parties concerned. We do not believe this amendment would strengthen enforcement. It would fragment it, and it would not serve the interests of consumers. We believe the amendment should be resisted.
It is not clear now whether these amendments have been grouped together with Amendment No. 193A, which is intended to provide three possible enforcement authorities: the Secretary of State, the director or a local authority. As it previously stood, the implication was that either the Secretary of State or the director was to be the enforcement authority. But whichever is intended, in our view it would be clear in respect of the important provisions enforceable under Clause 20 who is responsible for enforcement. In this case it should be the director. That is what the Bill provides.
Clause 20 (8) makes provision for defining who is to be the enforcement authority in respect of any particular duty or requirement. Thereafter the Bill is always explicit about who is responsible. In this clause, subsection (8)(b) defines the enforcement authority for contraventions of conditions of an appointment as the director. That is so because in our opinion the director will be the best qualified person to be the enforcement authority.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 197AB. Clause 20 requires the Secretary of State or the director to take enforcement action where a company has contravened a condition of appointment or statutory requirement enforceable under the clause. Subsection (5)(b) provides that if he is satisfied that the company is taking all such steps as it appears to him are necessary to secure compliance he is not required to make an enforcement order. The effect of this amendment is to remove the provision in subsection (5)(b), so that in such case of contravention of a condition of appointment or statutory requirement it would be necessary to make an enforcement order.
It has to be accepted that some breaches of a condition of appointment or statutory requirement cannot be put right overnight. To remedy a breach it may, for example, be necessary to provide a new water or sewage treatment works. The new treatment
930
works would have to be designed. Planning approval, perhaps involving a planning inquiry, may be needed. Time is needed for construction. Is the noble Lord suggesting that a final order should then be made when the undertaker is taking the necessary steps to put matters right?
Subsection (5)(b) of the clause provides for situations where it is not possible for undertakers to comply fully with certain of their obligations immediately, and programmes of remedial action have been agreed with the Secretary of State or the director. These programmes must be made public and will have to be implemented if the company is to avoid a final order. But, provided the programmes so agreed are being implemented properly, it would hardly make sense for the Secretary of State to make a final order. This part of the clause therefore provides a very effective means of achieving compliance. I therefore suggest that Amendment No. 197AB should also be rejected.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 194A. Under Clause 20, where the Secretary of State or the director is satisfied that a company is contravening a condition of its appointment or statutory requirement enforceable under that clause, he may make a provisional order instead of making a final order. The power to make a provisional order is included in the enforcement procedure to allow the Secretary of State or the director to take immediate action where circumstances require it.
If a final or provisional order is made, the obligation to comply with that order constitutes a statutory duty which the appointed company owes to anyone who may be affected by a contravention of it. Under the provisions of Clauses 22, 24 and 25 failure by an undertaker to comply with a final or provisional order may be the subject of civil proceedings brought by any person who is affected by a contravention of the order and who consequently sustains loss or damage. The fact that compensation may be sought in relation to a provisional order means that where such an order has been made the appointed company is immediately liable to action for damages if it fails to comply with the order. On the basis of my remarks, which I fear took rather a long time as I wished to be as comprehensive as possible, I ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord said that the amendment that is proposed would create confusion in ensuring that water supplies and quality of water were up to the right standards. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to subsection (3) of the proposed amendment, which states:
"In exercising their functions under this section, a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the Director".
That makes it absolutely clear that local authorities would act in total accordance with what is laid down by the Secretary of State and the director, and would add to those strengths in ensuring that the public achieves the right standards and quality of water supply, rather than the reverse.
Baroness Phillips: Will the Minister tell the Committee where the enforcement officers are to be

931
based? Will there be one in each local authority's area? Most enforcement officers operating under various Acts of Parliament in connection with health and safety are at present invariably linked with a local authority. If a sewer is the matter at issue, a local authority would have to be brought into the affair immediately because it would have the jurisdiction over the land involved.
The Minister's noble friend suggested there was duplication in the amendment. But there is, by heavens, duplication in the Government's proposals. We are talking about private companies. The quality of water provided by those companies needs to be overseen by some authority. Quite recently we discovered, somewhat to our horror, that the pigs at the food and farming festival in Hyde Park did not consider the London water fit to drink. I have always had great respect for pigs, having tended them on a farm. The quality of our water is an absolutely vital issue. There must be no dissembling in this regard. The amendment will not lead to duplication; it will make the operation of the Bill much simpler.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as I tried to explain—probably inadequately—we are setting up a new inspectorate which will be exactly the body which she feels is appropriate.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I tried to make it clear that the guidelines to which he referred would not be mandatory. That is why we believe that, with what will effectively become 400 enforcement authorities, there will be overlap and confusion.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister appears to put the protection of the Secretary of State's all-seeing powers and all-powerful statutory duties before almost any other consideration, indeed before every other consideraton. It seems to be suggested that the intervention of local authorities into the responsibilities under the Act for ensuring drinking water quality is a new proposal. That is not the case.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not the case that I want to help local authorities, as he seems to suggest. I am not in any way interested in helping local authorities; I am interested in helping the people who drink the water. That is the real consideration.
In his reply the Minister referred both to Clause 56 and to Clause 65. I should like to turn to both of those clauses because he suggested that they provide an alternative procedure which would adequately bring the local authorities into enforcement activity. I do not believe that that is the case. Under Clause 56 the intervention of local authorities is referred to in subsecton (5):
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision … as he considers appropriate for—(a) imposing duties and conferring powers on local authorities with respect to the acquisition of information about the quality and sufficiency of water supplies.
First, it says "may" rather than "shall"; secondly, it is by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill; and, thirdly, it is an extraordinary state of affairs that
932
that low down the chain of command the Secretary of State confers powers on local authorities.
If powers are to be conferred on local authorities, they should be conferred in the Bill. Everyone should know that that is happening. That is what we provide in our amendment. We do not do it not just by the back door but by the back, back door, which is what is proposed in the Bill under Clause 56. In any case, I am not satisfied that the powers in Clause 56 will be affective. It is no use giving people duties unless they have powers which they can use.
Under Clause 65(2)(f)—and here again it is a matter of regulations—
"regulations made for the purpose of determining the wholesomeness of any water may … enable the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority …to exercise in relation to a private supply any power conferred on the Secretary of State by regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) above".
Again, "may" and "by regulations" seem to me in the first place to be a duplication. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to look at that point before we come to those clauses of the Bill. Secondly, they seem to me to be hopelessly weak in relation to the requirements which we believe are necessary in order to secure the effective application of the enforcement procedures.
Clause 20 has many defects, which we shall deal with later this afternoon; but in order for it to be effective at all there has to be an organisation on the ground in the local area. There is no question of any threat to the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State sets the guidelines under which local authorities will act. There is no question of duplication: the Secretary of State's guidelines can be drafted in order to avoid duplication. However, there must be something better than a provision later in the Bill for regulations which the Secretary of State may or may not make in order to place duties on local authorities. If they are to have duties at all, and it is common sense that they should, local authorities should also have the powers to enforce those duties and the resources to exercise those duties. Otherwise the relationship between central and local government is not adquately reflected in the drafting of the Bill.
Unless the Minister can show us that the Bill is more powerful than he indicated in his first response, it looks to me as if I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that my reply may not be as helpful as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like. He has been slightly selective in his observations on clauses to come. I should like to point out that Clause 56(1), (2) and (3) provides full powers for local authorities, and the regulations which he mentioned are supplementary to those powers. The first lines of Clause 56(1) make the position absolutely clear:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for keeping themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies".
Baroness Lockwood: If it should be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as it considers appropriate for keeping itself informed,

933
why should it not also be the duty of local authorities to follow through that information and take action to ensure that the quality of water is improved? I think that the Minister introduced a number of red herrings into the discussion in his earlier remarks when he talked about duplication of authority and the sharing of responsibility for enforcement. There are many examples in which enforcement is shared by local authorities and other bodies. Having given local authorities the duties that are embodied in these clauses, it seems sensible to give them the further responsibilities which my noble friend's amendment requires.
Lord Renton: I hope that it may help noble Lords opposite if I say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving the amendment, dealt with the matter very strictly. He pointed out this amendment was intended to operate on Clause 20. Clause 20 has the very important purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to ensure that the companies which are to be the undertakers of water supply in the future abide by the conditions which are attached to their opportunity to do so. He did not at the time refer to later clauses (Clause 54 to 60) but they have come into the picture—and I do not complain of that—in speeches which have followed. But I should have thought that we need to consider Clause 20 on its merits and the later clauses on their merits because they have a different purpose.
We are being asked to amend Clause 20. At the risk of repeating what I said before, I simply say this. To give the local authorities the power which the amendment which has been moved would give them under Clause 20 would create duality, would create unevenness of results and of administration. It is far better that these rather special and important powers should be exercised solely by the Secretary of State, bearing in mind—if one may refer to the later clauses—that the local authorities are given different powers under the Bill, and very sensibly so.
Lord Trafford: Further to what my noble friend says—and I agree with what he says—if we are to look at subsequent clauses then Clause 56(3), for example, outlines the steps that a local authority can take which lead to an order by the Secretary of State. Therefore, in one sense the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be met. In addition, the correct channels of procedure would be used. That would avoid parallel procedures causing confusion, which was one of the other points which was raised. However, it seems to me that there is a channel by which those could be used. As my noble friend said, it would confuse the issue not to look at Clause 20 on its merits and see, when we come to Clause 56, as we shall, the fact that it gives the local authority those rights.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was the Minister who raised the question of the later clauses, not I. I shall respond to the challenge. Perhaps I may remind him of the clause to which he referred. He accused me of referring selectively to that clause. As he rightly said, Clause 56 states that:
934
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate".
But the point is that those steps must be appropriate for keeping the authorities informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supply. It is not until one gets way down over the page that one comes to any question of the powers of local authorities. It is no good imposing duties upon local authorities to keep themselves informed about water supply unless one also provides them with the powers to do something about it. That is what they do not have. In addition, nor do Clauses 56 and 57—Clause 57 refers to remedial powers; I am perfectly well aware of what it says—secure that the water companies are required to pay attention to what happens. That is what is not provided in the later clauses.
The reason why the amendment is designed to be inserted before Clause 20 and refers principally to Clause 20 is because that clause is about enforcement in relation to the conditions of appointment of the water undertakings. That is where enforcement sticks. If their appointment is at risk, that is when they will pay attention to those who seek to secure adequate drinking water quality and adequate sufficiency. To insert it later is a recipe for delay, procrastination and inefficient and complex regulation. To insert it here, in or before Clause 20, makes sure that the water and sewerage undertakings will do something about the controls that are quite properly being exercised.
We do not think that the Secretary of State can effectively exercise those powers, which are essentially local powers. We do not think that he—or the present Minister of State—has any intention of doing so because he has already expressed a lack of confidence in the law and in European directives on this matter. We believe that these amendments are essential to secure the protection of consumers. It is on that basis that I ask the Committee to express an opinion.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Galpern, L.

Blyth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

kearton, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lock wood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McNair, L.

935

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Soper, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stallard, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Peston, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underbill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Walston, L.

Reilly, L.

White, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Worcester, Bp.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Benson, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blake, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Middleton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Butterworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orkney, E.

Clinton, L.

Pender, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pennock, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V, [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Effingham, E.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

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.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Slim, V.

Gainford, L.

Stockton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgame, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hood, V.

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Rose Theatre
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place. It is as follows:
"Archaeological work on the site of the Rose Theatre has been in progress for some five months. This work has been financed by the developers, Imry Merchant Developers plc, under guidance from English Heritage and the Museum of London. It has become clear in the light of the most recent discoveries that the remains are of greater importance than was previously thought.
"As a result, the developers and their architect have been working urgently on possible ways of ensuring that the excavated remains are properly preserved and displayed to the public. I invited them to a discussion this morning, together with English Heritage, who have advised us on this throughout.
"I am very glad to tell the House that Imry have agreed to delay work on the theatre site for up to one month. This is to enable them and their architect to work with English Heritage and with us on the various options. The roof will go back over the site immediately, so that the excavated remains are fully protected while these discussions continue.
"English Heritage, assisted by the Government, will be contributing financially to the cost of the delay.".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must thank the Minister for repeating that Answer given in another place. From what he has said, the Answer sounds encouraging. I was particularly encouraged to hear of the financial help from English Heritage and the Government to protect the Rose Theatre.
Can the Minister tell the House any more about the form which the protection is likely to take? As we understand it, the threat which was to take effect at 6 o'clock this morning but apparently was not carried out was that piles should be driven through both the body and the stage of the theatre established by Burbage on which Shakespeare's and Marlowe's plays were first performed. That would really have been an outrage. Is the Minister telling us that that threat no longer exists and that the stage and the body of the theatre will now be protected first from piling and secondly from backfilling, which was the other imminent threat which we understood hung over the theatre as of this morning?
Will the Minister express on behalf of the House, as I do now on behalf of these Benches, appreciation of those who by their demonstrations over the past few days and today have prevented what would have been irreparable damage to the theatre from taking place this morning?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and say how encouraged I am, as I am sure are all other noble Lords, by the news that there will be a delay of one month before any action

937
is taken and—which is very important indeed—that the awning is to go back. We should however like further and rather more unequivocal assurances than we have yet received as to the plans envisaged by the developer in association with English Heritage and the Government.
As the noble Lord said, it is absolutely crucial that infilling does not take place. It is also vital that the piles are not driven through the stage and extremely important that when the plans are finally made they should allow the public to have access to this extraordinarily interesting site, which is of great importance in British theatrical history.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has had his attention drawn to a letter published today in the Independent from Mr. Ian Mackintosh, who is a trustee of the Theatres Trust appointed by the Minister. He is a designer of courtyard theatres, including the Cottesloe and the Wilde in Bracknell, and he makes practical suggestions as to ways and means by which the theatre could be preserved and made available to the public. In his opinion, if additional permission were given for an extra storey to be built on the building for which planning permission has been given, there should be no financial loss involved. I should very much like to hear from the Minister categorical assurances both that there will be no damage—not minimal damage—to what has been discovered and that the public will have access to this site.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can answer some of the noble Lord's questions. First, there will be no backfilling taking place during this period. Secondly, at this moment there is no piling going through and alternatives are being considered. However, that of course is a matter for the architect. I certainly am no expert on that front.
If I understood him correctly, the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, concerns the possibility of another floor, a suggestion as to which in this morning's Independent he drew to our attention. That would be a matter for the London Borough of Southwark, which granted planning permission in the first place. I know that your Lordships would not expect me to comment on that.
So far as concerns public access, as the Prime Minister said, we hope that all these remains will go back on public display.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Answer which he has repeated is in a considerable degree reassuring but that some noble Lords would like him to go a little further and indicate that it is the Government's intention that in the outcome this immensely interesting relic of our artistic and theatrical history will be preserved and in a form which will make it accessible to the public? Will the Government bear in mind that, apart from the strong feelings which many of us have as to the importance historically and aesthetically of this site, it offers a considerable contribution to our tourist industry?
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of the delay, as I have said, is so that English Heritage, who are contributing toward the cost, will, it is hoped, find and achieve a satisfactory outcome which will involve public access.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, apart from the interest displayed by all noble Lords, I have a family interest in the theatre since my direct ancestor's brother was the Lord Chamberlain at the time when Shakespeare was working and writing for the Rose Theatre. Indeed my ancestor was his employer and protector, technically speaking, at that time. He used to go over to Somerset House to receive payment for himself and his company. Therefore, I think that in some degree a member of my family has been responsible for William Shakespeare's place as the most important figure in our literary tradition.
Of course I share the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter and other noble Lords. It seems to me to be inconceivable that in a country with a site such as this, which has been discovered recently and which relates to so much essential in our culture and literary history, all efforts should not be made to make sure that it is preserved and indeed made accessible to all members of the public so that they can be aware of this extremely valuable memorial of an important era in our literary and cultural history.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having had the courage and the good sense at this late stage to do something about the Rose Theatre. However, is not my noble friend a little disappointed that the advisers should have been so late in the day in coming to the conclusion which has brought about this change of mind? In the Statement he said that it was only during the period when the people of the theatre were making a stand in order to protect the site that the Government realised the full importance of it. Should they not have realised it earlier? Will it not add to the value of the compensation that may have to be paid as a consequence of it being so late in the day before the full importance of the site was taken into account?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is why Imry Merchant in the first place allowed some four and a half months for the archaeological study to take place which resulted in the importance of the site being seen for what it was.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, like other noble Lords I greatly welcome the Statement by the noble Lord and the action of delay by the Government. However, is this Statement not a little tardy, as the noble Lord opposite has just said? If, as the noble Lord told us, English Heritage has been advising the Government for four to five months, why is it only today, when construction work was due to begin, that the Government have taken this action? Had it not been for the protests made by prominent figures in the theatrical and literary world, would not the Philistine element in the Government—which likes to see mortar and bricks built at a profit rather than

939
the English heritage preserved—have gone ahead? Why has it taken the Government so long—right up until the last moment—to take action seen in many parts of this country as the preservation of a genuine British heritage?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not feel that I can usefully add to what I have already said on the subject.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these curmudgeonly sentiments that have been expressed are not shared by many others in this field who are very grateful indeed for the Statement that has been made? With regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, does my noble friend agree that a death-bed conversion is just as welcome as an earlier one?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, so long as it results in salvation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like everyone else I welcome the moratorium. However, can the noble Lord be more specific in informing the House precisely what will be going on during this month? First, will there be an architectural study? What will be the purpose of that study? Will it be to find out whether it is possible to leave the Rose Theatre untouched in the basement of the building? Will there be an opportunity to negotiate financially? To what extent are the Government committed to resolving a financial problem that may arise? How much of the money is expected to come from English Heritage? What percentage are the Government themselves prepared to give?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amount of money is not yet certain. However, it will come through English Heritage. As regards structural and engineering problems, the reason we have the moratorium is that the architects are at the moment trying to resolve whether they can reposition the piles. I am not an architect, but I believe that that technical difficulty is the greatest problem facing them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will be just as sympathetic to the preservation of modern day amenities and listed buildings around the King's Cross area when that development takes place?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is another Question for another day.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, may I press the Minister on one aspect of his answer? I understood him to say that there would be no backfilling at this stage. I would prefer him to give me a categoric answer to the effect that there would be no backfilling at any stage because backfilling will wreck the Rose Theatre.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Imry has agreed that it will not proceed with backfilling while the further discussions on the options continue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while we all welcome very much the Statement that he has made, some of us feel that the reply given to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby was perhaps a little short? The point that my noble friend made was this. Had there not been a bevy of well known public figures—actors and the like—the bulldozers would have moved on to the site at six o'clock this morning. What will happen on other sites—they may not be the sites of former theatres but are just as important from many other aspects—if one does not have that bevy of public figures? That is what we are concerned about. The Government were not prepared to act: it required action by these public figures to bring about the very desirable result that the noble Lord has announced today.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I came to your Lordships' House today in order to repeat an Answer on a specific Question. I am not in a position to answer hypothetical questions.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, at the risk of being thought curmudgeonly, are we not in danger of going overboard about this interesting matter? From remarks in the press and indeed in this Chamber, it might be thought that we were preserving the Rose Theatre, important no doubt though that is. Are we not preserving a footprint of the Rose Theatre? Is it possible that we are going too far to preserve a footprint rather than an artifact?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord said earlier, it depends slightly on whose footprint it was.

Water Bill
4.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 20 [Orders for securing compliance with certain provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (5)")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 192A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 193B, 196A, 197A to 197C, 199A, 201ZA, 201ZB, 203A and 262A. These amendments arise from detailed discussions with the European Commission to put beyond doubt that this clause is fully consistent with European law.
Before describing the effect of the amendments it may be helpful to Members of the Committee if I first describe how the provisions in the Bill are structured so that the obligations imposed on a water or sewerage undertaker can be enforced. In order to give noble Lords a full picture it will be necessary to refer to some later clauses but I assure the Committee

941
that there is no intention on my part to pre-empt later discussion of those clauses and I shall be as brief as possible in my reference to them.
I should like to draw the Committee's attention to three aspects of the enforcement provisions: the obligations themselves, the system of final and provisional enforcement orders and special administration orders. Let me assure Members of the Committee at the outset that the penalties for failure by an undertaker to fulfil its obligations are severe and could ultimately lead to the loss of the undertaker's appointment.
I turn now to the first of the three aspects, the obligations. The obligations to which this clause applies are to be found in a number of plages in the Bill. For instance, we have already debated Clause 8 on general environmental and recreational duties, and Clause 9 on environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest, both of which impose duties on undertakers enforceable under Clause 20 by the Secretary of State.
Perhaps the three most important duties which are enforceable under this clause are the duty of undertakers under Clause 37 to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within their area, the corresponding duty under Clause 67 in regard to sewers and sewage disposal, and the duty under Clause 52 to supply for domestic purposes only water which is wholesome at the time of supply. In fact there are another 20 specific references in the Bill to duties enforceable under this clause. In each case a subsection specifically describes the duty as enforceable under this clause and by whom it is enforceable, whether it be the Secretary of State or the director.
As regards the second aspect—the system of final and provisional orders—I think it will be clearer to the Committee if for the moment I ignore the amendments and speak to the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Secretary of State or the director, whichever is the appropriate enforcement authority, as defined in subsection (8) may by a final order make the requisite provision for securing compliance with any condition of appointment or with any statutory requirement which the undertaker is contravening. Subsection (2) enables the enforcement authority to make a provisional order if, on the criteria set out in subsection (3), he considers that more appropriate. Essentially, a provisional order can be brought into effect immediately, but unless confirmed has effect at most for three months. The procedural requirements are set out in Clause 21 and need not concern us at this stage.
Clause 20(5) deals with the occasions when the enforcement authority does not exercise his powers, and I shall return to that point in describing the amendments.
The effect of an order is set out in Clause 22. I repeat that I do not want to pre-empt debate but merely to indicate to the Committee by a single example that the making of an order is no mere charade. Under Clause 22(7), compliance with an
942
order can be enforced by the relevant authority by an injuction or other appropriate relief.
I turn now to the last of the three aspects of enforcement; namely, the special administration orders. The Bill provides in Clause 23 that the High Court, on the application of the Secretary of State, or, with his consent, the director, may make a special administration order, if it is satisfied in relation to an undertaker of one or more of the grounds set out in subsection (4) of that clause. The purpose of such an order would be to transfer to another company so much of the undertaking as was necessary for its functions to be properly carried out and the carrying out of those functions pending the transfer. That brings me to the end of my general description of the enforcement provisions and I should now like to revert, as I indicated I would, to the circumstances in which the enforcement procedure is not brought into play.
Subsection (5)(b) of the clause provides for situations where it is not possible for undertakers to comply fully with certain of their obligations immediately and programmes of remedial action have been agreed with the Secretary of State or the director. These programmes will be made public and will have to be implemented if the company is to avoid enforcement action. But provided that programmes so agreed are being implemented properly, it would hardly make sense for the Secretary of State to take enforcement action. This part of the clause therefore provides a very effective means of achieving compliance.
The discussions that we have been having with the European Commission related to this subsection. The Commission was concerned, because of the discretion conferred by Clause 20 as currently drafted, that enforcement action to achieve compliance with the European Community drinking water directive might not be taken. That is certainly not the Government's intention, but to put it beyond doubt the Government have agreed to clarify certain points in the clause.
The effect of the amendments is that if the Secretary of State or the director general are satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (1) they are under a duty to make a final order, except in circumstances specified in subsections (2) and (5). Also, companies will now have to give and comply with undertakings concerning compliance programmes instead of entering into agreements. The remaining amendments are purely consequential. As I have already said, these amendments arise from detailed discussions with the European Commission to put beyond doubt that this clause is fully consistent with European law. Similar amendments will be tabled shortly for the Scottish provisions in Schedule 21.
The clause is particularly relevant to the EC drinking water directive. The standards set by the directive will be fully incorporated in regulations made under Clause 65 of the Bill, which will be laid before Parliament immediately after Royal Assent. Water undertakers will have a duty to comply with those standards under Clause 52. Clause 20(1), as amended, places the Secretary of State under a duty to take enforcement action against a water company

943
if it is contravening those statutory obligations. This duty is subject to Clause 20(5). The drinking water directive sets a large number of strict standards for drinking water quality. Some of these standards present difficulties, and the Government support moves by the European Commission to establish a regulatory committee to carry out a review in the light of recent technical progress. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the Government have welcomed the directive as a means of securing improved drinking water quality throughout the Community.
Drinking water in this country is of high standard already, and public water supplies are safe to drink. However, some water supplies do not yet fully comply with EC standards. Water suppliers are drawing up substantial investment programmes to bring about the necessary improvements and will undertake to carry out these programmes. These are the undertakings referred to in Clause 20(5)(b) and must be acceptable to the Secretary of State.
The Government are fully committed to complying with the drinking water directive. However, it must be recognised that investment programmes for achieving the necessary improvements cannot all be carried out overnight. At the same time, it will be essential to avoid severe disruption of water supplies or putting consumers' health at risk while works are being carried out. The speed of carrying out the necessary improvements may be limited by a number of factors. For example, time will be required to plan and design projects and to obtain the necessary approvals such as planning permission. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to order priorities according to the seriousness of the deficiencies that need rectifying. The Secretary of State will give due consideration to the practicalities when assessing programmes and their time-scales and will only approve undertakings under Clause 20(5)(b) if they contain proposals for achieving compliance as quickly as possible taking the practicalities into account.
Officials are currently examining the compliance programmes put forward by water suppliers against this requirement. In due course we shall be presenting to the European Commission our proposed time-scale for compliance with the drinking water directive which will be incorporated in the resulting undertakings.
Returning to the amendments now before the Committee, I should like to restate the Government's belief that the existing draft is already consistent with European law and that it provides a clear and open procedure for ensuring compliance with European directives. Nevertheless, we are happy to put this beyond doubt by moving these amendments. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is clearly a statement of the utmost importance. I shall break precedent straight away by asking the Minister to let me have a copy of the speech he has just made as quickly as possible in writing because we are due to debate later on this afternoon a number of the issues which he has touched on in his wide-ranging review
944
of the European Community directive and the Government's response to it. We should have a better informed debate if such a note of the speech were available, perhaps not only to myself but also to other noble Lords interested to have it. I do not know whether there is any precedent for this, but it would help us to debate matters more seriously and more effectively.
We can only welcome, so far as we can appreciate it, the new-found undertaking of the Government to comply with the European Community directive. I quoted within the last hour speeches made by the Minister of State in Committee in another place on this Bill in which he questioned the directives of the European Community on drinking water quality. He questioned whether they were sensible, whether they were too stringent. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has just said, the Government are no longer taking that position. Now, without any equivocation—if I am wrong in this interpretation no doubt I shall be corrected—the Government are taking the position that the European Community directive is to be complied with and the only issue is how quickly and in what form.
I am interested to see that in two amendments, Amendments Nos. 193B and 196A, the Government are seeking to do what they have always refused to do when we have introduced similar amendments. They are turning the word "may" into the word "shall". I have always thought that that was anathema to parliamentary draftsmanship. I am interested to find that the Government are willing to do that on behalf of the European Community but not on behalf of noble Lords. That shows where their priorities lie.
As I understand it, the key word in these amendments, as the noble Lord has reminded us, is in Clause 20(5)(b), which at present states that the company has agreed and is taking all steps to secure or facilitate compliance. It now states that it,
"has given, and is complying with, an undertaking to take all such steps".
Can the Minister tell me what is the difference in meaning between the two sentences? They appear to mean the same. Is it that one sentence is compiled in acceptable Euro-language or is there a subtle distinction in the English language that I do not understand?
It must be right that the Water Bill should be amended in order to comply with the Community directive on drinking water quality. The people of this country will require that and it is essential that the provision should be included in the prospectus for privatisation. Otherwise the risks of penalties for non-compliance would be too great. However, I must remind the Committee that the directive was originally made in 1980 and that response was required in 1982. The action required to correct the directive should have been completed by 1985.
In our discussion earlier on the Rose Theatre we heard reference to "deathbed conversions". This appears to be virtually a conversion beyond the grave. However welcome it may be, the fact of the matter is that, as a result of the Government's dilatoriness, for a number of years many British

945
people have been drinking water of a quality which is now agreed to have been unacceptable while the Government sat back and did nothing. The second point which must be made is that, although I am not a lawyer, I have no doubt that the wording now proposed complies with the Government's strict legal obligations to legislate for the improvement of drinking water quality. That is very different from actually improving drinking water quality.
I listened most carefully to that long section of the noble Lord's speech, which was full of qualifications. It was full of words such as "practicable", "timescale" and "various other considerations". It did not tell me when the people of Britain can expect to have drinking water which meets the European Community standards. If the noble Lord can help the Committee with that more than he was able to do in his speech I am sure that we shall be extremely grateful.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that to ask for a transcript of my noble friend's speech is impracticable and unnecessary. I believe that it is without precedent; I have never heard of it. The noble Lord should know perfectly well that we are at the Committee stage only. If when speeches are printed in the normal way there is found to be something at variance with what the noble Lord believed was said, he can deal with the matter on Report. That is why we have such parliamentary procedures.
The noble Lord asks off the cuff for a speech to be put into writing to only one Member, or to a limited number. The whole idea of our organisation is that what was said is seen in print by everyone at the same time. I suggest to the noble Lord that if his remembrance of what my noble friend said appears to make some of his later amendments redundant or unnecessary he can withdraw them. If when reading Hansard he finds that what was said was not what he thought the matter can be dealt with. But I think it would be wrong to start such a precedent and it would send us down the road which would interfere with our normal parliamentary procedures in dealing with such matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly the noble Lord is blessed with a photographic memory and has taken in every single word which the Minister said——
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I did not say that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not capable of doing that. We have a series of amendments which we could debate more effectively if we all had a photographic memory and were able to take account of what the Minister has said. Clearly it was a prepared statement and it may have been issued as a press release—I should not be at all surprised. Certainly it is expected that a statement of such importance will be made available to the press in order that it can be accurately reported on television and in the press.
946
In those circumstances, and when we are dealing with such matters in detail in Committee as we are supposed to do, it is better that we should do so with the help of the best information available. The only objection that I hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is the classic objection that nothing should be done for the first time.
Lord Ezra: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is of the utmost importance. The gist is that the Government have taken most seriously the standards laid down in the European Community and will seek to do everything possible to carry them out. That being so, we on these Benches fully support the amendments.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we should like to read the Minister's speech in detail. If we cannot do so before, we shall wait until tomorrow to read in Hansard exactly what was said and decide whether any issues are raised in relation to subsequent amendments. The gist of what the noble Lord said today appears to us to be fully acceptable.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows that I shall always try to be helpful. I hope that he will understand that temporarily—be it only for the next half hour—I feel most unhappy about being one who sets a precedent which he may regret. I am trying to do my best and hopefully I shall be able to say something a little later.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No. 193 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 193A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 193B:
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 194A:
Page 21, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove a subsection which I understand to be substantially altered. In the circumstances it would be better not to move it.
[Amendment No. 194A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 21, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 21, line 34, leave out ("made a final order or make or confirm a provisional order in relation to any company") and insert ("be required to make a final order or provisonal order in relation to any company or to confirm a provisional order to made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 197AB and 197AC not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 197B:
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("agreed to take and is taking") and insert ("given, and is complying with, an undertaking to take").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 197C:
Page 21, leave out lines 45 to 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 22, line 2, leave out from ("considering") to ("is") in line 3 and insert ("the making in relation to the company of a final order or provisional order or the confirmation of a provisional order so made,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 20IZA and 201ZB:
Page 22, line 12, leave out ("agreement entered into") and insert ("undertaking given").
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("exercise of powers") and insert ("order or confirmation").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 202 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 203 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 23, line 6, leave out ("any requirement imposed on a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by an agreement") and insert ("the requirement to comply with an undertaking given").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 23, line 17, at end insert—

(" "trivial" means slight and inconsequential, and no such reference shall be taken to include circumstances giving rise to danger to health;").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is not trivial. I think that even Wittgenstein would say that it is not trivial because this is an attempt to put some sense into the word "trivial" used in Clause 20. We believe it to be used in a way that is imprecise, which Wittgenstein would think was imprecise and which does not actually provide the protection that should be provided. I refer specifically to subsection (5)(a), where the Secretary of State is not able to make or confirm a provisional order in relation to any company if he is satisfied that the contraventions
948
were or that the apprehended contraventions are of a trivial nature.
One can look up "trivial" in the dictionary and one can discover that it means "slight and inconsequential", and we have put that into our amendment. I do not believe that there need be any difficulty or controversy about that. I have no doubt that whether or not the Government wish to accept the amendment, they will accept that that is a reasonable exposition of the word "trivial". However, there is a more important point in our amendment; that is, that the word "trivial" should not be used in Clause 20 to include circumstances giving rise to any danger to health. That is a matter of some significance which deserves the attention of the Committee and the support of the Government.
It is unlikely that any of the conditions of appointments or statutory duties themselves will be regarded as trivial. In that sense I suppose that we do not expect severe contraventions. However, the interpretation of "trivial", although there are interpretations of other words in this clause, such as "final order", "provisional order", and so on, is left to the Secretary of State and to the director. I do not believe that that is satisfactory and I do not believe it is satisfactory to leave open the possibility that something which the Secretary of State or the director describes as trivial and therefore does not proceed to make or confirm a provisional order could involve danger to health.
We have had considerable discussion on the issue of the European Community directive on drinking water quality. Despite what the noble Lord said a few moments ago about compliance with the directive, the fact is that there have been derogations allowed from drinking water quality directives. For example, in 1986 the Department of the Environment told water authorities that they should ignore the pesticides standards set down by the Community and substituted its own values. As a result of that, the European Community issued a reasoned opinion and said that relaxation of drinking water sampling procedures was not acceptable and that the various relaxations which have been permitted over the period of years would not be acceptable in the future.
It is consistent with what the Minister has told us about the Government's acceptance of European Community directives that we should be assured that "trivial" cannot include any contravention which is dangerous to health. I move this amendment in the hope that the Government can assure us that that is the case. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right in seeking to have a definition of the word "trivial" because otherwise we might run the risk that the Secretary of State or the director could give this a wider interpretation than we might give it. I believe that the interpretation as proposed is reliable. I hope that the Government will accept that, but if not, perhaps they will give their own interpretation of the word.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is concerned, as he

949
has just outlined, that a contravention of condition or requirement of circumstances giving rise to danger to health could be classed by the Secretary of State or the director as trivial.
The meaning of "trivial" is well understood and we do not consider that the proposed definition makes any useful contribution to our understanding. Clearly, it is extremely unlikely that circumstances giving rise to a danger of health could be properly regarded as trivial. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not regard this as a dusty answer to this amendment but we believe that the word "trivial" is clearly understood.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Is not "trivial" a somewhat subjective judgment? What is trivial to the noble Earl may not be trivial to me. Would it not be better to have clarification of the definition of "trivial" as suggested by the noble Lord?
The Earl of Arran: I should have thought that most people have a very good, commonsense understanding of the word "trivial".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl's reply confirms my worst fears. All that he is able to say in response to a direct challenge is that it is extremely unlikely that a contravention which is "trivial" would be a danger to health. In other words, he is saying that there is a possibility of the Secretary of State being unable to secure, or to make or confirm, a provisional order that is necessary to stop a nuisance which is a danger to health.
That is not good enough. The noble Earl will have to assure the Committee more effectively than he has done that the Secretary of State will not be debarred by the use of the word "trivial" from taking effective action to deal with impure or unwholesome water which is a danger to health.
The Earl of Arran: The interpretation of "trivial" is ultimately a matter for the courts. The decision of the Secretary of State or the director general that contraventions are of a trivial nature could be a matter for an application for judicial review. I repeat that anything to do with health is never regarded as a trivial matter. It is regarded as a very serious matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am certain that my noble friend is right. The word "trivial" has a meaning which is well understood by everyone who knows the English language. No one has suggested that there is any possibility of anything likely to give rise to danger to health ever being considered trivial. Why do we suddenly wish to show this disquiet about our procedures? Where there is any doubt about the matter, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches said, the courts are there to sort it out. I do not believe that it is necessary to give interpretations where the court would be able to take into account all the circumstances concerned. I can see the sense of including the words,
"no such reference shall be taken to include circumstances giving rise to danger to health".
950
However, to try to give the meaning of the word, "trivial" merely by quoting what one of the dictionaries says is going outside the normal procedures. I believe that my noble friend should stand firm on this matter; otherwise, if we start giving interpretations of every word used in our statutes they will be even longer than they are now; and, heaven knows, we have too many of them already.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, appears to forget that Clause 20(5) is negative in effect. The Secretary of State or the director cannot make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order if the contravention is deemed to be trivial. In other words, the fail-safe position is the wrong way round. However, it is clear that we are not going to make any progress with the wording of the amendment so while reserving our rights to come back to it, I feel it better that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Before I do so, may I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for making available to me a copy of his speech on Amendment No. 192A, or of that part of his speech which refers to the implementation of the directive on drinking water quality. I do not know whether he is proposing to do the same for other noble Lords who express an interest—it may be an innovation for the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—but it will help me and I have no doubt it would help other noble Lords in the consideration of subsequent amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was very interested in the words used by the noble Lord when he moved the amendment; but I cannot remember all the details and nuances which came from it, so I wonder whether he can let me have a copy of what he said so that when I am making a decision as to which is right I can be certain that I am on the right side. I think that that is fair under all the circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord knows perfectly well from observation that I do not speak from notes. If he has seen Hansard reporters attempting to get notes from me he will know that they have always failed.
The amendment which I moved has no subsequent amendments to be debated in the Committee. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment I said that the matter would be referred to again at Report stage. The noble Lord will have an opportunity to read my speech before we return to the matter at Report stage. This is a very different issue from a ministerial statement, which will undoubtedly be circulated to the press.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is absolutely against known parliamentary procedure for any speech to be read, whether it be from the Front Bench or the Back Bench. To suggest, as the noble Lord has, that there was no need for my noble friend to make a speech and he could have given us the notes is against the procedure. One is supposed to be talking extempore, even when one does have the use of notes. To put on record that in point of fact prepared

951
speeches could be put in Hansard without their being spoken is against procedure. I think that my noble friend made a mistake, if he does not mind my saying so, if it is a precedent, in giving a copy of a speech that he made.
Lord Hesketh: In a way I am very excited that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a copy, but, to put at rest the mind of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I have to say that I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, came by it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi):The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Amendment No. 204B, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to pursue the last point before we proceed with the next amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The amendment has been withdrawn. I have now called Amendment No. 204B. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that if he wants to raise this point, he should raise it on Clause 20 stand part, to which we shall come later.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204B:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—
("( 1 1) Where any notice is served under this section, a copy shall also be sent as soon as reasonably practicable to any local authority in the area covered by the appointed company.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 204B pursues a line of thought—although it is slightly different in emphasis—which was the subject of our earlier debate this afternoon. This is the point which refers to Clause 56, where local authorities have the duty of taking such steps as they consider appropriate for being themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies provided to premises in their area.
It is proposed in this amendment that there should be a new subsection to Clause 20, which is the clause dealing with orders for securing compliance with certain provisions, which would say:
"Where any notice is served under this section, a copy shall also be sent as soon as reasonably practicable to any local authority in the area covered by the appointed company".
The argument is familiar, but I hope it is not stale. If the local authorities have a duty to keep themselves informed, that duty becomes an effective duty only if those who know things about which the local authority should be informed have a duty to tell them about it. Under Clause 20 it is the duty of the Secretary of State and the director to prepare orders, and it seems that if the local authority is to carry out its duty under Clause 56 it would not be unreasonable for a copy of the notice served under Clause 20 to be sent as soon as reasonably practicable to any local authority in the area covered by the appointed company. Again, we are not being revolutionary in this amendment.
The use of the photocopier has transformed a number of bureaucratic and administrative
952
difficulties which might otherwise have been an objection to this amendment. It cannot possibly do anybody any harm, and it permits the local authorities to act in accordance with Clause 56 if this amendment is agreed to. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: For once the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a proposal which I find attractive. I shall not put it higher than that. Earlier I complained that the first amendment which we discussed today would have caused duality of responsibility. Another noble Lord said that it caused confusion. I am glad that we won the Division. I think that this is a useful suggestion for avoiding confusion and duality because—if I dare mention it prematurely—the local authorities have certain responsibilities under Clauses 52 to 60, and if they were kept informed of what the Minister is doing under Clause 20, it might even save some administration. I rather hope that one of my noble friends will give a word of encouragement on this matter, which is well worth considering.
The Earl of Arran: I am going to have to disappoint my noble friend regarding words of encouragement on the amendment, for reasons which I hope briefly to outline. We certainly agree that it is very important to inform those who have an interest in any enforcement action to be taken. We are aware that in the majority of cases local authorities will have sewerage agency arrangements with the sewerage undertaker. We are aware of the role of local authorities in regard to public health, to give just two examples of when the local authority should and, under the Bill as it stands, would be informed. However, we still consider the proposed amendment to be unnecessary for reasons that I shall now explain.
Clause 21 details the procedural requirements to be followed when enforcement action is to be taken. There are four stages of enforcement procedure where the Secretary of State or the director must publish the notice describing his intentions. They are: first, before making a final order or provisional order; secondly, as soon as practicable after making a final order or confirming a provisional order; thirdly, before revoking a final order or a provisional order which has been confirmed; and finally, if, having published notice of his intention to revoke an order, he decides against that action.
The key point in regard to the proposed amendment is that, as the Bill already provides, on each of those occasions the notice must be published in a manner which will bring the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them. The notice must specify a period of not less than 28 days in which representations or objections may be made. It would merely be a burden to local authorities for them to receive such a notice as one enforcing an undertaker to supply information to the National Rivers Authority which did not affect them. Every effort is therefore made to ensure that persons concerned with enforcement action are informed and given the opportunity to comment. That will include local

953
authorities where appropriate. With that explanation, I hope I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must confess I find that reply totally illogical and irrational. The Bill already makes provision for local authorities to be notified of applications and variations to appointments. How different is it now to ask for local authorities to be notified about information which is essential to the performance of their duties under Clause 56 and Clause 57, and probably under Clause 65, although I have not got that far in my exegesis? If they need to know about applications and variations of appointments, surely they also need to know about any subsequent failure of the undertakers to meet the appointment conditions? Would that not be a logical consequence of the distribution of information to local authorities, which is already a part of the Bill? I do not understand why that situation is so different.
The Earl of Arran: I do not think that I can add very much which will help the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, other than to repeat the key point. As the Bill already makes provision for these occasions, the notice must be published in a manner which will bring the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of people likely to be affected by it. I should have thought that in these circumstances there is plenty of information which the local authorities need to have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no more rationale in the Government's answer now than there was before. It is not a matter on which I seek to divide the Committee, although I am completely unconvinced by the answers given by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 20, as amended shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I wonder whether any decisions that have been made on this clause ought to stand in view of the movement away from the normal parliamentary procedures. I am not attacking the noble Lord or even being critical of him. However, the noble Lord said that he ought to have a copy of the statement in view of its importance to this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that I ought to have a copy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord said that he would like to have a copy, as it may affect the way in which he would deal with later amendments. That is a request that I have never heard of before and one which I have never heard being complied with. However, it was complied with. The noble Lord held up a piece of paper with words printed on it and said: "I have now got it". I did not see the noble Lord leave the Chamber; I did not see my
954
noble friend leave the Chamber. I should like to ask how the noble Lord obtained it. Having asked that question, I should like to know how the noble Lord obtained a paper, which says "presumed to be an official report", and which states what my noble friend has said in the process of formulating legislation. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is 100 per cent. satisfied that it is right that he should have it in that form.
The noble Lord spoke about people having photographic memories. Can he guarantee that the words written on that paper are the words used by my noble friend? Can he guarantee that in the process of making his speech he did not leave a part out or put something extra in. It will be in Hansard tomorrow and everybody can then take it properly into account? The procedures of Parliament take that into account.
The idea of having a Committee stage followed by a Report stage is that people have time to find out the actual words that were spoken in order to make certain that that is how Parliament intended the legislation to be.
We have no official body presiding in this House that can give me an answer to this question. However, I should be grateful if somebody could tell me how and from where the noble Lord obtained the paper which he held up. The noble Lord said that it was a verbatim copy. My noble friend did not leave his position and therefore he could not have given it; the noble Lord did not leave his position in order to obtain it. This is not a trivial matter. It is an important matter if, by the drop of a hat, we suddenly move away from procedures which are tried and tested. There are many examples of things which are prepared as a statute that have been slipped through by accident because we have not kept to procedures. I have in mind the very important amendment which affected the homosexual situation which has worried the people of this country for many years. It was supposed to have been slipped in at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning when someone did not follow the normal procedures to their ultimate. I have no doubt that, if one researched, there would be many other examples.
I am voicing a protest at this stage that we should deviate from the normal procedure, particularly when we are dealing with legislation which is not a general proposition but will be the law of the land. I hope that someone can give me the satisfaction of knowing the answer to this question so that the whole of the Committee will know how the paper was obtained. The noble Lord said: "I have got it." I think it is important that these things should not slip through, and I should like to know whether someone can give me an answer at some time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very anxious not to widen the debate into a full procedural debate on this matter, I wish only to answer the direct question put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and to say one thing with reference to the rules of debate in this House.
The direct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is that I do not know how I got the paper. It was brought to me with my name on

955
it. It is entitled "Speaker's Notes". I assure the noble Lord that if there is anything which would cause him concern—it does not cause me concern—I shall not in subsequent debates refer to it as if it were a verbatim record. I shall simply be grateful for the fact that a very complicated Statement made by a Government Minister has been made available for a more informed discussion on this matter.
I should like to make a procedural point by reading from Item (vi) of the Rules of Debate in the Companion to Standing Orders:
"The reading of speeches is alien to the custom of the House and is an obstacle to good debate. It is recognised, however, that on some occasions, for Ministerial Statements, it is necessary to read from a prepared text".
On this occasion the Minister was assuring the Committee that the Bill conformed to the requirements of a specific EC directive. It is a matter of the utmost importance and it is of the utmost importance to be precise about our terms. I did not say that I ought to have the statement, but I asked whether it would be possible to have it in order that I may be able to respond in a more accurate and intelligent way. My poor brain is not up to the requirements which would otherwise be made of it. I think that it was asked for and offered in good faith, and I hope that the debates in your Lordships' Committee will benefit as a result. In my view there will certainly not be any breach of the Rules of Debate in this House and I will not use what I have been given in any way which would breach the Rules of Debate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to say one word and then I shall not pursue the matter further. The noble Lord has confirmed everything that I have said concerning the rules of procedure regarding reading of speeches. He said that there could be an exception with regard to Ministerial Statements. This was not a Ministerial Statement; this was dealing with an amendment in the normal way. There should not even be that excuse.
The noble Lord has said that he does not know how he got the statement. I wonder if my noble friend knows he got it. These things do not drop out of the sky.. Since it is a breach of the normal procedures, I should like to know how the noble Lord's name appeared on the piece of paper and was delivered to him in the way that it was.
5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a perfectly reasonable request. He did not demand anything, but merely said that it would be helpful if he got the information. I believe the Government are to be commended for providing him with the information that he required and that our debates will gain as a result of that.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may intervene. The fact of the matter is that the Government did not send it and the reason that they did not is the reason that I gave. I was extremely cautious about the fact that precedent and procedure are most important to the Committee. That is why I did not do it. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, came to
956
have the information. I assure the Committee that the reason that I was unwilling to make a commitment was because I did not know the answer.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls:Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Someone must know how he got it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My noble friend is good at procedure and plays a large and helpful part in debates in this Committee. I believe that he is straining at a gnat here. It does not seem to be a matter of vast significance. I am holding up only half of the Bill and we have a great deal to go through. We have talked about trivialities but in my view this really is trivial. The explanation that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave was a perfectly reasonable one. Whether the paper floated down from the ceiling or where it came from, I do not know. I believe that the example he gave was a very good one. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has so much experience and provides such tremendous value in the cut and thrust of this Committee that I hope he can see that this is not a matter that we should pursue. I believe that we should get on with the Bill.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204C:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—

("Local Registers of drinking water quality

.—(1) For the purposes of facilitating the enforcement provisions of section 20 above, the Secretary of State shall make regulations for the establishment by local authorities of local registers of breaches of the drinking water quality requirements of this Act by any undertaker.
(2) Such registers shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times, and no charge shall be made for such inspection.
(3) The Director shall be required, as specified in the regulations, to secure that adequate resources are made available for the establishment and maintenance of such registers.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a continuation of the same line of argument that we have been putting forward so far. We have already noted that local authorities have very considerable obligations under this Bill as regards drinking water quality. What we are asking for in this new clause is that their obligations to participate in the scrutiny process of drinking water quality should be matched by an obligation to be open to the people in their areas. We are proposing that, in order to help the enforcement of the provisions in Clause 20, local authorities should be required by regulation made by the Secretary of State to established local registers of breaches of drinking water quality and to make those registers open for inspection at all reasonable times. In addition, the local authorities should secure that adequate resources are made available for the establishment and maintenance of these registers.
I believe that this is an example where some local authorities will say that I am not speaking on their behalf because what is imposed here is an additional obligation on them. The maintenance of a register of the breaches of drinking water quality is not a trivial matter; it requires staff time, space and access for the public. It is something that would help to

957
convince people in all local authority areas not only that action was being taken but that it was being seen to be taken and that breaches of drinking water quality were being brought to their attention.
In response to an earlier amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, described the requirements of the Bill for publicity and publication of the various enforcement procedures. What is proposed here is something that is in line with existing obligations of local authorities as regards other matters of public concern.
People expect to go to their local authorities to obtain information about matters that they are concerned with. It would be common sense for the public to go to the local authority information point, whatever that may be. As regards some local authorities the Citizens' Advice Bureau provides the necessary information concerning drinking water quality as it does about so many other matters. I believe it will be for the convenience of water consumers that local authorities should perform this service on their behalf even if it is not necessarily for the convenience of the local authorities themselves. It is in that spirit that I move this amendment.
Lord Addington: This amendment will effectively make sure that the local authorities register what goes on with water, especially when something goes wrong. Also, public access will be available to that information. I cannot see any real harm being done in having this new clause as part of the Bill. Surely the people who drink the water have a right to know if there is something going wrong with it. Also a local authority is a tier of local government that is very close to the people and is probably the best organisation to make sure that the appropriate information is available.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this new clause would be to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish local registers of drinking water quality which would be open for public inspection free of charge. I am glad that this new clause has been moved as it gives me the opportunity to explain how the regulations we are now preparing under Clause 53 will ensure that full information about drinking water quality is made public. Although I recognise and appreciate the noble Lord's intention, I hope that when he has heard my explanation he will realise that the new clause is unnecessary.
First, the regulations will require each water undertaker to publish an annual report giving a fair and true picture of water quality in its area. This report must provide information on how far compliance with the quality standards has been achieved and what progress is being made towards compliance. A standard format for presenting the information will be set out in the regulations. Secondly, each local authority in the water undertaker's area will receive a copy of the report and a further report including further information about the supplies in the local authority's area. Thirdly, the regulations will state that for each supply
958
zone a water undertaker shall keep a record of the results of all samples of drinking water quality taken for the purpose of the regulations in that zone. These records are to be made available for public inspection by anyone free of charge, at offices of the undertaker open to the public.
In this way customers will be entitled to free information about the general quality of water supplied to their property. All the analytical data for their supply zone which has come from samples taken in accordance with the regulations, and as up-to-date as reasonably practicable, must be made available to them. If the water is not up to standard, information on progress towards compliance must also be available. This is a very important new provision. People should have the right to know whether the water they are being supplied is up to standard. All this information will also be available to the drinking water inspectorate.
Legal obligations will thus be laid on all water undertakers to provide this full and clear information under provisions already in the Bill. I hope that with this assurance the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Lord Ezra: I shall be much happier with what the noble Lord has said if we can resolve this matter of "shall" and "may" that we have referred to many times. The noble Lord has referred to Clause 53. Subsection (3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations require a water undertaker to publish information",
and so on. I believe that he will give us a complete answer to what we are talking about if the word "may" in this context is replaced with the word "shall".
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that after the Government's change of heart earlier this afternoon there will be a strong feeling that we should have progress on a broad front on turning "may" into "shall". However, I fear that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord on this point. After an initial burst of enthusiasm it has not stayed with me quite long enough.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is sauce for the goose but not apparently for the gander. I shall not ask the noble Lord for a transcript of his speech. What he said has given me sufficient indication, despite the lack of the word "shall" which would be reassurance on the face of the Bill, that the Secretary of State intends to bring in appropriate regulations so that the information we require will be made available to customers free of charge.
I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said before considering what amendments are necessary, if indeed any amendments are necessary, at another stage. With that return to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would call the traditions of parliamentary procedure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Procedural requirements]:
[Amendment No. 205 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 23, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) No provisional order shall be suspended, or modifications made to a provisional or final order under this section, where—

(a) the effect could reasonably be expected to create any injury to health; or.

The noble Lord said: This amendment is a serious and I hope an effective attempt to deal with delays which seem to be inevitable in the provisional order procedure., Perhaps I may remind the Committee that after a provisional order has been made there is a 28-day period for representations and objections. There is a subsequent period for the Secretary of State to consider any representations or objections. When the Secretary of State has reached a conclusion at the end of those two periods there is the possibility of a 42-day period for appeals to the High Court. It is possible that the lodging of such an appeal would suspend the effects of any order until such a time as the matter could be heard.
It may well be that in some circumstances this delay will not matter, but where there is a risk of, as we say in the amendment, injury to health or damage to the public interest we feel strongly that the delays in the procedure, towards which in other respects we are sympathetic, should not permit the suspension of a provisional order or modifications to a provisional or final order. In other words, we should have fail-safe procedures where if anything goes wrong public health rather than administrative or legal convenience is the first consideration.
I have already given the example of Camelford. I apologise for my lack of imagination in returning to it. Camelford was a real problem where something happened very quickly. It took some time for people to realise what was happening. A good deal of damage was done to the drinking water by the action of a tipper truck driver. The health of hundreds and perhaps thousands of people suffered as a result. It took a considerable time before the water authority concerned recognised that anything was wrong and it has taken an even longer time—up until today—for an admission that there is any legal obligation as a result. By saying "until today", I mean that as far as I know there has been no acceptance of a legal obligation.
There should be a fail-safe procedure to prevent the suspension of a provisional order to prevent modifications in these specific circumstances where there could be injury to health or damage to the public interest. In the absence from the Committee of many lawyers, I hope that those who feel especially prickly about times available for representations will not feel that this is an unreasonable improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The intention of this amendment is to ensure that a provisional or final order cannot be revoked or modified where to do so would be
960
injurious to health or any delay caused would be adverse to public interest.
It would indeed be worrying if the circumstances envisaged by this proposed amendment were possible but we consider that the operation of the provisions of the Bill would prevent such an occurrence. The Bill contains some 25 requirements and regulations enforceable under Clause 20, some of which are related to standards necessary to avoid injury to health. The enforcement authority, where he is satisfied that a company is contravening a requirement and has initiated enforcement action, could not then agree to modify or revoke orders when this,
"could reasonably be expected to create … injury to health",
since this would be to allow the contravention to continue.
The reference to delay in the second part of the proposed amendment is presumably related to the modification of a final order. It is true that modification requires a period of consultation but in circumstances where urgent action is required—for example, where delay would result in a damaging effect to the public—then a provisional order requiring immediate action would have been made rather than a final order. Indeed Clause 20(3) requires the Secretary of State or the director to have regard in particular to the extent to which any person is likely to sustain loss or damage when considering whether to make a final order or a provisional order. A provisonal order would remain in force for up to three months. If necessary, it may be confirmed within this time when notice of that intention and consideration of representations would be required. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That reply is in part reassuring but our amendment specifically says that:
"No provisional order shall be suspended".
I did not hear in the noble Lord's speech any reference to the suspension of provisional orders. I wonder whether he can help me on that point.
Lord Hesketh: If an undertaker makes an application to the courts under Clause 22, the provisional order would not be suspended but would remain in force and in operation until the High Court itself decided to do so and quashed it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems to make sense. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 215 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Validity and effect of orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 216 to 218 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Specific administration orders in relation to water or sewerage undertakers]:
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 220 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 27, line 34, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections (special administration orders in relation to companies) and").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 222, because both amendments relate to the same subject. I speak not only for myself but I also represent the views of the three chartered bodies of the accountancy profession and also of the Association of Insolvency Practitioners. The amendment arises when three conditions exist. The first is when an order has been made under Clause 23(2). The clause is designed to protect the position of creditors. The second condition is that the company can pay its debts in full; and thirdly, that there are creditors existing at the date of the order.
As the Bill is presently drawn the professional bodies are advised—I have been at pains to consult the same authorities—that it may not be possible for the administrator who is appointed to pay the creditors existing at the date of the order although the company has the resources to pay its debts in full. The problem is that the Bill includes some sections from the Insolvency Act and it is extremely difficult to decipher the precise meaning of the Bill when those sections are included in it.
I need hardly say that the professional bodies, in accordance with their usual practice, raised the matter at departmental level some weeks ago. However, I am advised that the difficulty is that the two departments involved—the Department of the Environment and the DTI—have differing views on this subject. The legal advisers to the professional bodies feel that the matter is so confused especially as regards the difference of view between the two departments that the only possible way out of the difficulty is this amendment.
For the removal of doubt I should say that creditors after the date of the order under Clause 23 will of course be paid in full because the administrator will be responsible for so doing. We are speaking only of creditors at the date of the order when the company has the money to pay them. It would be most helpful if the noble Lord in his reply would say that he was willing to arrange for the three contesting parties to meet together in a room so that they could agree exactly what the Bill, with the inclusion of the insolvency sections, means. When they had agreed that issue, if necessary, an amendment could be put forward to give effect to what had their combined approval. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The grounds on which the courts may make a special administration order are set out in Clause 23(4) of the Bill. A special administration order may be made in respect of an appointed company on the grounds of its insolvency, or likely insolvency. An order may also be made on other grounds in respect of a solvent company. The proposed new clause would expressly empower a
962
special administrator to make payments to creditors where a solvent company is the subject of a special administration order.
We believe that the proposed new clause is unnecessary. Let us look at what the special administration order is. The Bill provides that it is an order of the High Court directing that while the order is in force, the affairs, business and property of the company are to be managed by a special administrator appointed by the court in order to achieve the purposes of the order and, so far as is consistent with those purposes, with a view to protection of the interests of members and creditors of the company.
The special administrator is under a duty to manage the affairs, business and property in accordance with proposals prepared by him, subject to any directions from the court. In the case of a solvent company, it is likely to to be consistent, for the purposes of the order, for the special administrator to make payments to creditors whether or not the debts or liabilities in question were incurred prior to making the order.
There are two purposes attached to a special administration order: first, to transfer to one or more new appointees as a going concern so much of the appointed company's undertaking as is necessary in order to ensure that the new appointee or appointees are able to properly carry out the functions, and secondly, to keep essential water and sewerage services operating until the transfer is achieved. Necessarily, the continuation of those services will require payments to be made to many creditors. As we are dealing with a solvent company, the company should carry on making the payments it would normally be required to make. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary; we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Benson: I am most grateful for the explanation. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Is he saying that the administrator has the power to pay creditors existing at the date of the order if the company is solvent? That is the issue.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that I am correct in saying that.
Lord Benson: In the light of that answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Benson Lord Benson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 222.
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:

("Special administration orders in relation to companies.

.Where an order under section 23 above is for the time being in force in relation to a company the person appointed may pay debts or liabilities incurred prior to the time of the making of the order, unless the company is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts.").
The noble Lord said: As I have just withdrawn Amendment No. 221,I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 222A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:

("Compensation for loss of assets.

.—(1) It shall be the duty—

(a) of a special administrator exercising the powers contained in order under section 23 above; and

(b) of the Secretary of State or Director on making any appointment under section 11 above,

to ensure that the existing appointee receives a fair price for its assets and undertakings which are to be transferred to the successor appointee.
(2) In exercising the powers contained in an order under section 23 above the duty of a special administrator under subsection (1) above shall be satisfied by making the transfer to the successor appointee subject to the payment of the fair price by the successor appointee to the existing appointee. If the special administrator is unable to find a company prepared to pay the fair price, the special administrator shall either—

(a) request the Director to re-assess the fair price. If the existing appointee disagrees with the re-assessment the dispute shall be referred back to the Monopolies Commission; or

(b) request the Secretary of State or Director to amend the terms of the appointment so as to enable the special administrator to achieve the fair price.

(3) On making an appointment under section 11 above the duty of the Secretary of State or Director under subsection (1) above shall be satisfied by making the appointment subject to the condition that the successor appointee pay the fair price to the existing appointee.
(4) In this section—

"existing appointee" has the same meaning as in section 13 above;

"fair price" means such price as the existing appointee shall agree with the Director. Any dispute shall be referred to the Monopolies Commission for determination;

"special administrator" means a person appointed under section 23 (2) above;

"successor appointee" means the company appointed under section 11 above to succeed the existing appointee or the company to which the assets and undertakings of the existing appointee are transferred by an order under section 23 above.").

The noble Earl said: Like the noble Lord, Lord Benson, I wish through this amendment to look at the working of the regime imposed by the Bill when it comes into force, the Bill provides that appointed water and sewerage undertakers will face the possibility of losing their appointment. An undertaker's licence may be terminated on 10 years' notice and that notice is not to expire before the year 2014. The notice will normally be given only when the undertaker is in serious breach of its obligations under the Bill. However, it could in theory be given when the undertaker is not actually in default.
The possibility of termination of appointment raises serious implications for consumers and for potential investors. The proposed new clause seeks to ensure that an existing appointee will receive fair value for its assets if it loses its appointment.
If, in the year 2004—which, incidentally, is one year after my driving licence expires—an undertaker is given notice that its appointment will terminate in 10 years' time, what will happen during the subsequent 10 years? Further, what will be the implications for the undertaker's long-term capital and maintenance expenditure? It seems likely, first, that the undertaker will be inclined to make no more
964
than the minimum expenditure necessary to comply with its obligations. That cannot be in the long-term interest of the consumer.
There is protection provided by Clause 23—the clause to which we have just agreed. However, it is not in the consumer's interest for the undertaker's performance during those 10 years to sink to such a low level that it is inevitable that a special administration order is made under that clause. Moreover, in the harsh world of finance, if 10 years' notice of termination of appointment has been given, the undertaker may have difficulty in obtaining finance for continuing long-term investment unless proper rules exist for the protection of the assets which may be its only collateral.
Thus, unless the assets are safeguarded in the long term in some manner, the fact that an undertaker's appointment may be terminated—indeed, there is no long-term certainty of any appointment continuing—must be of serious concern to potential investors. The proposed new clause suggests one way in which such problems might be tackled.
The present water authorities own a network of assets—including reservoirs, treatment works, pumping stations, supply mains, sewers and so on—which enable them to supply water and to provide sewerage services. Those assets transfer to the undertaker on appointment under the provisions of the Bill. The assets are of no use to anyone except an undertaker holding an appointment. The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that the existing appointee—that is, the current undertaker—receives a fair price for its assets from the successor appointee.
The fear of those in the water authorities, thinking about the nature of the regime which the Bill imposes, is that one appointee should be unable to receive a fair price for its assets from a successor appointee. If there were to be no competition for the appointment, without the new clause the existing appointee, on termination, would be unlikely to receive a fair price for its assets. There might even be a ring against it, as it were, when it would be offered no more than a trivial sum.
The clause may seem rather long, but its effect is simple. Both the special administrator, when making an order under Clause 23, and the Secretary of State or director on making an appointment under Clause 11, would be under a duty to ensure that the existing appointee receives a fair price for its assets. The fair price would be agreed between the director and the existing appointee. Any dispute can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Any transfer under an order under Clause 23 would be subject to the condition that the successor appointee pay a fair price to the existing appointee.
If the special administrator were unable to find a company prepared to pay a fair price, he would have to ask the director to reassess the fair price or request the Secretary of State or the director to amend the terms of the appointment so as to enable the special administrator to achieve the fair price.
On making an appointment under Clause 11, it would be the duty of the Secretary of State or the director to make it a condition of the appointment

965
that the successor appointee pay a fair price to the existing appointee. The problem is serious. I hope that the Government have considered the implications of the provisions in the Bill which lead to the termination of an undertaker's appointment. The potential repercussions are serious, both for the long-term interests of the consumer in the successful operation of a privatised water industry and for the flotation. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would come into effect where a special administration is in force, for the purpose of transferring from the existing appointed company the necessary assets for the operation of water and sewerage services to a new appointee and is intended to ensure that a fair price is obtained for an appointed company's assets.
I have considerable sympathy with the intent of the amendment. The appointed companies will need to plan the substantial investment necessary in the water authorities' successor companies on a long-term basis and will anticipate an appointment lasting 25 years. Termination on 10 years' notice or following default has raised the fear that there would be scope for choosing as the new appointee the one who would accept the lowest value charging formula but would therefore offer the lowest price for the assets.
I accept that that could have serious disadvantages. For example, the company could be likely to minimise capital and maintenance expenditure. That would create serious regulatory problems and could not be in the long-term interests of the consumer. Moreover, the prospect that little consideration would be paid for assets transferred could also cause financing problems as any creditor might be concerned about repayment.
However, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook do not provide a market solution. The suggested definition of fair price has nothing to do with what potential incoming appointees might be prepared to pay. If the price were not met, the existing appointee could languish indefinitely in the hands of a special administrator, moving the company from normality, and with a further disadvantage to creditors and shareholders, the very people whom the amendment is intended to protect. I should therefore like to consider whether other more appropriate amendments could provide a solution which, subject always to the general duties imposed upon the Secretary of State and the director by Clause 7, would permit a transfer of assets on terms which are fair to customers and companies alike.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I heard my noble friend clearly say that he had taken on board the concerns which I voiced when moving the amendment. I am grateful to him for agreeing to consider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [TransitionalProvision on Termination of Appointments]:
[Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 199, line 46, after ("provisions") insert ("and without further assurance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 229 and 230:
Page 200, line 32, at end insert—
("(5A) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above includes—

(a) provision for treating any person who is entitled by virtue of a scheme under this Schedule to possession of a document as having given another person an acknowledgement in writing of the right of that other person to the production of the document and to delivery of copies thereof; and

(b) provision applying section 64 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (production and safe custody of documents) in relation to any case in relation to which provision falling within paragraph (a) above has effect.").

Page 201, line 16, at end insert—

("(f) that disputes as to the effect of the scheme between the existing appointee and the new appointee, between either of them and any other appointee or between different companies which are other appointees are to be referred to such arbitration as may be specified in or determined under the scheme;

(g) that determinations on such arbitrations and certificates given jointly by two or more such appointees as are mentioned in paragraph (f) above as to the effect of the scheme as between the companies giving the certificates are to be conclusive for all purposes.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6: [Special Administration Orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 231 to 239 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Restriction on winding-up etc. of water or sewerage undertaker]:
[Amendment No. 240 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Government financial assistance where special administration orders made]:
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 28, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Where an order is made under section 23 above, the Secretary of State shall make such grants or loans or give such guarantees under this section as shall ensure that any losses incurred in carrying on the company's business after the time of the making of the order do not result in a reduction in the amount which can be paid to creditors of the company in respect of debts and liabilities owing to them at that time.").
The noble Lord said: There would be three conditions which would bring the amendment into effect. The first is where an order has been made under Clause 23, and I repeat that Clause 23 is designed to protect creditors; secondly, that there are creditors existing at the date of the order; and,

967
thirdly, that it is necessary to keep the company, or the business, in being in the public interest under Clause 37, which envisages just such a situation.
Clause 25 also envisages just that situation because it provides that the Secretary of State shall provide grants, loans or other financial arrangements to enable a company to continue in being in the public interest.
Creditors arriving after the date of the order are not in jeopardy because the administrator will have to deal with them, but the creditors existing at the date of the order are in trouble, or in possible jeopardy, because they may see losses being incurred, year after year or for a considerable time, using up their assets, and they can do nothing to stop those losses frittering away the assets which would have been available to pay their debts.
I should make the point that, but for the order, creditors existing at the date of the order could stop those losses frittering away their assets; they could do that by demanding repayment of their debts, by issuing a writ or by putting the company into liquidation. They cannot do that because of the order, and so it is necessary that they should be protected as regards the assets existing at the date of the order which would be available to pay their debts. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State, where a special administration is in force, to make grants or loans or give guarantees, to ensure that the amount payable to creditors is not less than it would have been if an administrator had been appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986.
The comparison with the appointment of an administrator under the Insolvency Act 1986 is misleading. It ignores the vital difference in circumstances between other companies and the water authorities' successor companies appointed to carry out the water and sewerage services. The special administration procedures are uniquely necessary to the water industry because the fixed assets of the undertaker (pipes, sewers, treatment plants, etc.) cannot be replaced except in the long term, and the continued function of water and sewerage services is vital to the health and economic well being of the community and cannot be allowed to lapse even in the short term.
Any other insolvent company would be wound up and would cease trading, but a water or sewerage undertaker would not be wound up because of the vital importance of continuity of services. Instead a special administrator would be appointed to ensure continuity of services and to carry out the transfer of the existing appointee's assets to a relacement appointee. The provisions in the Bill are derived by adaptation of the administration order provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The proposed amendment implies creditors may lose more money than they would otherwise have done because of the special administration procedure. We believe, because of the particular nature of the water or sewerage undertakers' assets, that that is not necessarily the case. The continuation
968
of the company as a going concern is a necessity for the well-being of the customers, but it may well also benefit the creditors. The special administrator has a duty to protect the interests of members and creditors, but this is secondary to the purpose of the order.
The benefit to creditors will result from the likelihood that the business may well have a higher value if sold as a going concern than it would if it were sold piecemeal. Individual assets may be fairly worthless independently of the appointment. Therefore, if the company is sold as a going concern the creditors are more likely to be paid in full than if the company were immediately put into liquidation.
The proposed amendment also raises the difficult question of who should pay for the inefficiencies of an appointed company. Should it be the customer, the creditor, or, as is implied by the amendment, the taxpayer? It would clearly be unfair for the customer to suffer through reduced services, as would be the case if the company were in default, and those same customers then be subject to higher charges to put the default right. Nor can it be acceptable for the inefficiencies of a company to be paid for at a national level, by the taxpayer. I can only reach the conclusion that insolvency is a commercial risk that every trader is aware of and the creditors of water authority successor companies should be fully aware of the special administration order when they commit themselves to business with those companies. It is for those reasons that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Benson, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Benson: I am grateful for the explanations which have been given. I shall take them away and consider what effect they might have.
We have heard a great deal about fixed assets and I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me on what would happen in a certain situation. Suppose there were a fund of cash at the date of the order of, let us say, £2 million available to pay creditors existing at the date of the order. What will happen in practice is that the administrator will use that fund of cash to keep the business in being in the public interest. Maybe losses will be incurred. Does the noble Lord have in mind that that should be allowed to happen, that the fund of cash which is available to pay the creditors at the date of the order should be used and should be allowed to be used while the company makes losses for some unspecified time in the public interest? That could not be reasonable.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The position is that the priority is for the continuation of the water and sewerage business. However, I have tried to make clear that we believe that a very reasonable case could be made that protection is given on the basis of having the administration rather than having a traditional insolvency.
Lord Benson: I am not satisfied with that explanation but it is not a matter for dividing the Committee at the moment. I shall take back what

969
the noble Lord said to see whether we can find some other solution, perhaps at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Director's duty to keep matters under review and to consider certain matters]:
[Amendment No. 242 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 242A:
Page 28, line 45, leave out from ("Director") to third ("to") in line 46.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 242A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 244A. Clause 26 and the succeeding clauses deal with what is coyly called,
"Review of certain matters and investigation of complaints".
I wish to make clear that we see the review of certain matters as being of considerable importance because it is the basis on which a number of items dealing with the protection of consumer interests can be given effect.
Clause 26(1), dealing with the director's duty to keep matters under review, says that the director shall,
"so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so, keep under review the carrying on both in England and Wales and elsewhere of activities connected with the matters in relation to which water undertakers or sewerage undertakers carry out functions".
I think that I understand that. Our objection is to the phrase,
"so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so".
It is not a matter of the convenience of the director that these reviews should take place. As the heading to the sequence of clauses makes clear, the reviews are there in order to protect consumer interests. There ought to be something much firmer about the timing of the reviews and the insistence on reviews than there is in the subsection as drafted at present. We have made the point on a number of occasions that the director general has the responsibility for regulation and not just for consumer interests. But that is not a good reason why, where his activities are for the purpose of protecting consumer interests, they should be subject to this kind of qualification and weakness.
We are not proposing in the amendment any particular period for review. I suppose it is conceivable that without putting in any alternatives the Government might argue that there could be less frequent reviews under our amendment than under the clause as drafted. But I do not think that that is the case. If we look back at previous legislation we see that the regular review of the activities of the bodies being regulated—in this case the water undertakers or the sewerage undertakers—is a common feature in legislation and one which deserves protection and enhancement in the Bill. To take the earliest example of which I am aware,
970
the Fair Trading Act 1973 contains provisions for review. The same is also true of the Telecommunications Bill—the Telecommunications Act—and the Gas Act. I apologise for continuing to refer to legislation as Bills. That is the way we see it and it is difficult to believe that Bills take the form of Acts after they have left us.
There are particular reasons why the regular review of water and sewerage undertakings is important. First, those undertakings are natural monopolies. It is the Government's argument—a flawed argument in my view, but nevertheless an argument—that comparative competition will exist and permit an assessment to be made of their efficiency, from the point of view both of the public interest and of the shareholders.
Secondly, the price review procedures—with which we have not yet finished dealing and which I hope will not remain in the same inadequate form that they are in at the moment—allow for only very infrequent price reviews. It is intended that prices should stay on the same formula for up to 10 years. That is a quite unsatisfactory situation and one which means that reviews of the undertakings as a whole should take place more frequently than is proposed for price reviews.
The third reason is that the water industry is perhaps unusual in that innovation does not really take place at the level of individual water undertakings. It is much more likely that innovation which will cause an improvement, either in quality of the service provided by water or sewerage undertakings or in a reduction in price, will be at an industry level rather than at an undertaking level.
One of the obligations of the director general is or ought to be the encouragement of best practice so that the innovations should be available to all the undertakings. After all, we are not dealing here with cut-throat competition between one water company and another. They are all providing or are supposed to be providing a comparable service. The only difference is that it is to different parts of the country. There is no reason why the companies should not share any information they have with each other and with the statutory water companies and their successor companies, in order to improve that service. So the director general has an interest in securing adherence to best practice and securing the dissemination of technical innovation, managerial innovation or indeed innovation in financial procedures or distribution procedures which would help to provide a better service.
For all those reasons it is necessary that the director should have as strong a duty as possible to review the activities of the undertakings. We believe that the phrase,
"so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so",
is a classic example of weasel words. It enables the director general, if he were so minded—I cast no aspersions on the director general designate himself—to neglect that duty. The duty should not be for him to decide; it should be concerned with the benefit of the consumers.
Amendment No. 244A is closely related to that point. It deals, in another sense, with the independence of the director and the relationship between the director and the Secretary of State. We all understand that the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament; in other words, he holds the responsibility for the political priorities to be imposed on the director. In this amendment we seek to secure that the director general has operational independence and that he has the resources to implement any priorities that he sets for his activities. I believe that in another place in Committee the phrase "the persuasive authority of the Secretary of State" was used. I do not think that is a clear enough definition of the distinction between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and those of the director general if we are to achieve what is sometimes called a level playing field. I find some difficulty with the phrase "level playing field", partly because I went to grammar school in High Wycombe. Those who know Wycombe Wanderers will know that the pitch of that team in the Rye slopes not up and down from one end to the other but from one side to the other. One's position in the team rather than the side one is on determines whether one has an easy or a difficult task. Therefore the phrase "level playing field" has always meant something diffierent to me than to other people.
If we are to have a level playing field between the director general and the Secretary of State, the director general must have the responsibility for establishing his own regulatory priorities and also for having regard to the political priorities set by the Secretary of State. Unless he has the reponsibility for setting his own priorities and for giving a sufficient amount of his own financial and staff resources to that, he will not be able to do the job properly. I remind the Committee that the director general will have a staff of only 80 to deal with 39 water and sewage undertakings. In other words, he will have scarcely more than two members of staff per undertaking. Unless there is an improvement in his position, he will be running a very tight ship. He will have great difficulty in asserting his own priorities—the priorities of the independent regulatory body—over any political priorities which may be set by the Secretary of State.
It is quite possible that the Secretary of State could set so many priorities that the director general would have no chance to do anything as regards his own priorities. That does not seem to us to be a satisfactory way to deal with the relationship between them. These amendments have been tabled for the purpose of clarity and for asserting the independence of the regulatory body, and the director general as the head of that regulatory body. I hope they will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 26 places a duty on the director general to keep himself informed about how both the appointed companies and water and sewerage undertakers abroad carry out their functions. The director also has a duty to collect information about the carrying out of the functions of the water and sewerage undertakers and about
972
the companies themselves. Amendment No. 242A would remove the qualification from subsection (1) that he should only collect such information,
"so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so".
The director is best placed to judge what is practicable and it surely would not make sense to expect him to go further. He will in any case judge for himself the information he requires so that he can properly carry out his Clause 7 duties, and will seek out the information he requires rather than just reacting to situations as and when they arise.
The director will in any case receive information on a regular basis from appointees. In addition to his duties under this clause, the model instrument of appointment puts an obligation on the appointees to provide the director with a wide range of information. This may be an annual requirement, for example, to satisfy the director that each year's charges have been fixed in accordance with the charges formula in condition B, to provide regulatory accounts under condition E or to provide information on standards of performance under condition I. Alternatively the appointees will be obliged to provide information on request, such as concerning undue discrimination under condition D or any general information the director requires under condition L.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, talked about previous legislation. The qualification,
"so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so",
is well precedented in the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Gas Act 1986. The Committees scrutinising those Bills wisely decided not to impose an unlimited requirement for the director to go to any lengths to collect information.
We firmly believe that the intention of the duty is perfectly clear. It would be unreasonable to expect the director to go to any lengths to collect information. We believe that the amendment therefore is unreasonable and ineffective. I therefore urge the Committee to reject Amendment No. 242A.
I now turn to Amendment No. 244A. Clause 26 also provides that the Secretary of State may give general directions to the director about considerations he should have regard to when determining his priorities for collecting information under subsections (1) and (2). Amendment No. 244A seeks to prevent such general directions limiting these duties of the director to keeping himself informed.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to indicate in general terms considerations he thinks the director should take account of in his information gathering. This would be relevant if an issue arose to which the Secretary of State considered particular regard should be paid; for example, a matter of national or social or economic importance. The subsection would allow the Secretary of State to draw such matters to the attention of the director and the director would have a duty to have regard to those directions, but he would not be barred from taking into account other relevant considerations. I

973
can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State's power in no way dilutes the director's obligations under the clause. It is for those reasons that I ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl said. However, it appears to me at the moment that he managed to misunderstand both of my amendments. He talked about an unlimited obligation on the director to collect information. However, the collection of information is referred to under subsection (2), not subsection (1). I have not proposed any amendments to subsection (2).
Amendment No. 242A is concerned with keeping under review the functions and activities of the water and sewerage undertakers, and not with the collection of information. I certainly agree that it is up to the director to collect such information as he considers practicable, so that he can carry out any duty or power that is conferred or imposed upon him. However, the fundamental duty to carry out a review is something which should not be subject to qualification. I do not think that the reply of the noble Earl adequately reflected that fact.
Similarly, in Amendment No. 244A we were not in any way proposing to limit the power of the director. We proposed to limit the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the director, which is rather different. However, these are matters which deserve further consideration.
Lord Trafford: I follow the noble Lord's argument and I think that I understand it, but I wonder to what extent the amendments reinforce the powers of the director, bearing in mind that he already has certain specific duties under Clause 7 which we have already discussed. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to include these amendments. The noble Lord has not convinced me of the need.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has the same problem I have owing to the fact that references to the director general are to be found scattered throughout the Bill in many different places. It would be enormously helpful if there were at some stage a résumé of the role of the director general and his duties, powers, and responsibilities as well as the resources which will be available to him. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, would like to join me in putting down a suitable amendment at Report stage to clarify the position.
In the meantime, I do not believe that that is a sufficient argument against the amendment. My amendment properly comes at the beginning of a series of clauses which purport to deal with the investigation of complaints and, in Clause 27, with the protection of customer interests. That is the purpose for which I understand the review to be required. That is why I believe that the review should have particularly strong statutory force.
Lord Trafford: I agree with what the noble Lord says about the duties of the director being scattered throughout the Bill. It would be nice if they were all to be found in one place so that we knew exactly what he is supposed to do. However, with respect to the noble Lord, he has not convinced me that the amendments are necessary to reinforce the general duties outlined under Clause 7. Therefore I cannot see in what way they advance the powers, independence or duties of the director. That is the point on which I hoped he would persuade me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly the Government consider they are necessary; otherwise they would not have included a separate clause dealing with the review. If Clause 7 was adequte for the purpose, then the extensive provisions in Clauses 26 and 27 would not be necessary.
These are matters which deserve further consideration. Without necessarily yielding to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and certainly without yielding to the arguments from the Government Front Bench, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 244A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 245 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 27 [Protection of customer interests]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 245A.
Page 29, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) to make representations to the Director and any other relevant body on any matters as the committee considers appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 245A it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 245B, 246A, 248A, 250A, 253A and 256A. These amendments are designed to strengthen the role of the customer service committees. I am bound to say, vis-à-vis the previous debate, that that is somewhat difficult because, although they fall under Clause 27, the references I shall use have their genesis in Clause 6.
As the Committee will be aware, Clause 6 deals with customer service committees. Clause 6(1) states:
"The Director may establish and maintain committees, to be known as customer service committees, for the purpose of carrying out the functions which are assigned to those committees by this Act and of carrying out such other functions as they may be required to carry out by the Director".
The purpose of the amendments is to put some flesh on the bones of the functions assigned to those committees by the Bill. That is the right of all oppositions. We are anxious to see that what we wish to happen is written on the face of the Bill rather than left to the good intentions of people like the director.
Amendment No. 245A would enable the customer service committees,
"to make representations to the Director and any other relevant body on any matters as the Committee considers appropriate".
The Minister may tell us that there is no need to write that on the face of the Bill because what we propose is what is expected to happen. If the committees were able to make such representations, that would be fine.
However, I should like the Committee to reflect for a moment on the kind of committees that would exist and the reputation they would have if their powers were very restricted. Clause 27, which has the rubric in the margin "Protection of customer interests", states in subsection (1):
"It shall be the duty of a customer service committee to keep under review all matters appearing to the committee to affect the interests of the persons who are customers or potential customers".
However Clause 27(3) states:
"The only remedy for a breach by a customer service committee of a duty imposed on it by subsection (1) above shall be the making of such a complaint to the Director as is
mentioned in subsection (2)(e) above".
If one relates Amendment No. 245A with the subsequent amendments with which it is grouped our intention becomes clear. In Amendment No. 250A we are seeking to ensure that the function of the committees will be,
"to provide effective and aggressive representation for consumers in the investigation of any complaint as is mentioned".
By that we mean that we want those bodies to be seen to be willing to take on—and I mean "take on" in every sense of the phrase—on behalf of consumers the complaints which are drawn to their attention.
In Amendment No. 250A we also propose that the committees should,
"disseminate advice and information to consumers of water or users of sewage services".
The Minister may well say that there is no need for that to be written on the face of the Bill because that responsibility will be within the committees' purview. If the noble Lord can say that all the information on water and sewerage services which the customer service committees consider should be disseminated will be disseminated, he will go a long way to meeting our case.
In Amendment No. 256A we seek to make it a duty of the director,
"to make such arrangements as he considers appropriate to secure that the level of staffing, and other resources available to a customer service committee are adequate to the rigorous fulfilment of its functions under this section".
We have expanded the functions under that subsection. We are not sufficiently daft as to believe that one can expand functions without willing the resources in order to carry them out. If the Committee accepts that it is right and proper to expand the functions, the resources—which, in effect, will be adequate numbers of staff—should be provided.
The Committee will recall that, in a debate reported in cols. 343 to 345 of Hansard on the second day of our Committee proceedings, the Government rejected in principle the idea that the customer
976
service committees should appoint their own staff. That argument was lost, but we return to the general issue of what resources will be made available to the committees. It should not be assumed that the committees will have adequate staffing. We want the Minister to tell us what he envisages to be adequate staffing and how he intends to consider the matter generally. He must face up to a number of problems in that respect.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to a debate that took place in this Chamber last Friday. In that debate, there was a reference to a document which has just become available, entitled A Review of the Crown Prosecution Service. One may well ask what that has to do with the Water Bill. If one asks me that question, one extends what I intend to say because it serves as an illustration of my argument. When the CPS first saw the light of day and the case for it was made, the House was told that it was anticipated that a staff of about 2,500 would be required. However, by the time it saw the light of day and became a fact, that figure was 3,500; it is now 4,500. The original estimate to staff a very important element of our judicial system went up from £70 millionto £170 million.
The point I am making is that it is one thing to pooh-pooh the idea that one needs to bother about the level of staffing at this stage and another to find out later whether the job can be done properly. Is it the Minister's intention that the committee's job will be done properly? We want some idea of the number of staff and whether the Government have given any thought to the matter. We believe that it will be worse than useless if one creates a body that has the aura of being—to use a cliche—a consumer or customer watchdog but which is neutered from the beginning, has little to oversee and has limited powers. At the end of the day, it may say that it could do more but does not have the staff required.
I very much hope that the Minister will help us. We on this side of the Committee consider that aspect of the Bill—to ensure that the customer feels that his complaint will be dealt with seriously and pursued aggressively—to be an aspect that he should feel satisfied is part of the privatisation system. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 245A. I believe that we have here the nub of the argument with regard to this group of amendments. We are talking about how effective the consumer committees can be. If there is any limitation regarding whom they can go to with any complaints, we place a serious restriction on them. If they are to be truly effective, they must have the ability to go to whomsoever is considered appropriate with whatever complaint or question they have.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 245A would make it a duty of a customer service committee in protecting customer interests to make representations to the director and any other relevant body on any matter that the committee considered appropriate. Amendment No. 248A is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 250A which seeks to impose three further duties on those

977
committees. First of all, the amendment requires that not only should these committees be effective in investigating customer complaints but they should also be aggressive in so doing. Secondly, they are to be effective and aggressive in representing customers in any investigations carried out by the director or any other body. Thirdly, they are to disseminate advice and information to customers.
Amendment No. 245B would make it a duty of a customer service committee to approve, with or without modifications, a disconnection code of practice relating to the area served by that committee. Amendment No. 246A would enable a customer service committee to take enforcement action itself under regulations issued by the Secretary of State for a contravention of the company's appointment.
Amendment No. 253A would omit the reference to the only remedy for a breach by a customer service committee of a duty imposed under subsection (1) of the clause, being a complaint to the director general. Amendment No. 256A seeks to impose a duty on the director to make such arrangements as he sees appropriate to ensure that staffing and resourcing of customer service committees is adequate for them to perform their functions—in terms suggested by the wording of the amendment—with rigour.
These amendments would drive a wedge between the customer service committees and the director general, and would make for confrontation between the committees and the companies that have been allocated to them. The amendments ignore the benefits of the arrangement in the Bill under which the customer service committees are appointed by and report to the director general. The committees carry that much more weight in their investigations of complaints through such an association. Any divorce between him and those committees would therefore weaken rather than strengthen them.
The committees are able to report to the director general under Clause 36(1)(b) on any matter which appears to them to affect the interests of customers of companies allocated to them. The director needs their advice in order that he can properly be able to protect the customer. Their views will be all the more valuable for the balance of interests represented on those committees—the local authorities, industrial, commercial and farming interests and, most of all, domestic customers.
As the noble Lord well knows, we utterly repudiate the suggestion that the director general will not be able to protect customer interests and that in some way the Bill requires him to place the interests of companies above the interests of customers. I cannot think of anything better designed to encourage confrontation with the appointed companies than the reference in Amendment No. 250A to aggressive representation of customer interests. What is surely important is that there should be effective representation of customer complaints. That is often best achieved through co-operation rather than confrontation.
978
I quite agree, however, that the: CSCs have a role in providing information to customers in relation to their existing duties under the Bill. That is provided for through the public being able to attend meetings, on those being reported in the press and through publication of customer service committee reports.
I also agree about the importance of customer service committees' comments being taken into account in the preparation of the disconnection code and any revisions to it. Where a customer service committee was established at the time of preparing those codes of practice, the director will be able to take its views into account prior to approving the code. Furthermore, the appointed company has, under condition G of the model instrument of appointment, to consult the customer service committee in carrying out any review or making any substantial revision to the code before submitting any revision to the director for his approval.
It is appropriate that it should be the director who approves those codes. As the economic regulator, he has knowledge of conditions throughout the industry and the necessary powers to enforce the procedures as set out in the codes. By enabling the customer service committees to take enforcement action under regulations issued by the Secretary of State, as Amendment No. 246A would provide, there arises the obvious difficulty of inconsistency in the use of those powers to which I referred in an earlier debate this afternoon. It would also create an over-elaborate framework of regulation which would be fragmented and less effective. We regard it as self-evident that, since the director is responsible for appointing the customer service committees, for their staffing and also for their budgets, he should consider complaints made against them.
Finally, on the financing of these committees, under the financial provisions in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 4, the customer service committees have to prepare financial statements each year in respect of the expenses they expect to occur. The director must ensure when approving those statements that the committee can probably and properly undertake the duties imposed in the Bill. I emphasise, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place, that it is in the director's interest to ensure that sufficient members of staff will be available to assist him and the customer service committees and that funds will match that requirement. Furthermore, the budget of the Office of Water Services, out of whose expenses they are financed, is itself subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny and will be kept under review.
In closing, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who asked when an announcement would possibly be made on the increased budget for the Office of Water Services as sought by the director general designate. No final decision on the budget of the Office of Water Services has been made but we hope that an announcement can be made by the end of next month. I emphasise that this reconsideration of the budget is proceeding along the lines indicated by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place. Therefore it is not anything exceptional and

979
indeed there is a danger of too much being read into it.
Having made those points, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the Minister has given a very full reply. However, at the outset I must tell him that it does not satisfy me. He constantly talks about the totality of these amendments driving a wedge between the customer services committees and the director and between the customer services committees and the companies. Frankly, I am appalled by the idea that the ambition of a consumer committee to be more aggressive, more visible, more busy and perhaps to make itself more of a nuisance is the raison d'etre for driving a wedge between that committee and the people whom it serves—between the companies and the director on behalf of the consumer.
This series of amendments is intended to indicate not only to the consumer—and perhaps I laid too much stress on the consumer and the customer—but also to the director and the companies that these bodies mean business. They do not intend to be supine or passive. Perhaps the opposite of aggressive is pacific; in other words, wanting to be passive in these matters. There may be a better word to use than "aggressive". I do not believe that it is the only possible word or even the best word to use but it conveys to me the kind of stance that I wish to see these bodies take. The Minister sought to imply that we seek to give these committees powers that go beyond those of the director and perhaps usurp his authority and functions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Amendment No. 245A seeks to give the committees power,
"to make representations to the Director and any other relevant body".
It says "representations". What a stick, what a power, what awkward bodies such committees will be! They are asking for the power to make representations, not idly but in the light of their experience and the complaints that they investigate. For the Minister to say that there is only one channel out of this committee and that it leads to only one place—namely, the director—is a churlish way of looking at the good sense of those people.
Of course they rely on the director, who will lay down duties and, I hope, encourage them to be an effective part of the new machinery. I am certain too that that relationship will evolve over time, and whether one is thinking in terms of a period of 12 months, or whatever, those individuals must work out their procedures. In other words, we want to beef up the role of the customer service committees—nothing more and nothing less.
However, the attitude of the Minister clearly demonstrates that he does not want the committees to be beefed up and have a higher profile. In effect, he wants them to be part of a cosy relationship with the director. We cannot accept that and we invite the Committee to express its view.
6.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 245A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Blease,L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Mishcon, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strange, B.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Lawrence, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Clinton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Grantchester, L.

Radnor, E.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hacking, L.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rees, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Hanson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hives, L.

Sharples, B.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trafford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Trefgarne, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young of Graffham, L

6.34 p.m.
[Amendment No. 245B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 246 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 246A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 248A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 250A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 253 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 253A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 254 to 256 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 256A not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Functions of Director with respect to competition]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("services provided by water undertakers or") and insert ("supply of water by water undertakers or the provision of sewerage services by").
The noble Earl said: The effect of this amendment is to define the existing wording "services provided by water undertakers" more clearly as "supply of water by water undertakers or the provision of sewerage services by" sewerage undertakers. This is simply a drafting amendment to ensure that the clause works as intended by the Fair Trading Act 1973. I beg to move.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Mergers of water or sewerage undertakings]:
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No.257A:
Page 32, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: with this amendment I speak to Amendments Nos. 257B to 257D. This group of amendments seeks to extend the Government's mergers policy as set out in Clause 29 to all water undertakings and not just those over the current fair trading gross asset value, which is at present £30 million. I declare an interest as chairman of a statutory water company that has assets of over £30 million. I am also a vice president of the Water Companies Association.
When the Secretary of State announced his policy in another place on 11th January of this year he explained that the measures set out in Clause 29
982
are necessary to protect the basis of comparative competition and to assist the effective regulation of the water industry. The Water Companies Association has been of the view that if the customer is to receive the undoubted benefits of transferring the water authorities into the private sector there must be as few as possible impediments to competition, including that of takeover. However, the association has recognised the need for a structure of comparative competition through regulation, and the danger that coalescence of undertakings would erode this.
The association had been making representation about this for some months before January. I took part in some of them. The Water Companies Association welcomes these measures to protect comparative competition. However, for reasons that I shall indicate, we feel that the adoption of the Fair Trading Act limit—which was devised for circumstances where monopoly was not absolute and the need for regulatory competition therefore not crucial—would reduce the effectiveness of the measure in its correct attempt to protect the interests of customers.
Sixteen of the 29 statutory water companies are below the £30 million asset value limits. It will therefore be seen that this clause as presently drafted makes a presumption that only 23 of the 39 scheduled water undertakings are required for comparative competition purposes. I believe that this presumption in the clause—whether or not it was intended to be in the clause—is a bad one. It has the effect of ossifying the structure of comparative competition. As I see it, it entitles those above the £30 million limit to believe that the chances of being taken over are slim. The need to retain them as comparators in practice will override other considerations. The pressures on them therefore to perform to the best of their ability will be reduced.
As I attempted to suggest in my Second Reading speech, it would be far better for this clause to apply to all water undertakers. If it did, it would give the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a totally free hand in considering the structure of comparative competition. All water undertakings would know that unless their performance made them valuable to the director general as comparators, they would be abandoned to the normal exigencies of commercial life. That would make comparative competition much more effective in particular in those areas—and there are quite a number of them—where the only competition to the new large service plcs will be provided by statutory water companies, quite a number of which, as I have already indicated, have less than £30 million asset value.
There is another very practical reason that I should add to my argument. The efficiency studies carried out on all water undertakings for the Government have, I believe, revealed that some undertakings of less than £30 million gross asset value perform better than their larger colleagues. In these circumstances is it not sensible for this measure to be drawn in such a way that the director general will have the benefit of all companies as efficiency comparators? Again, if the provisions are applied to all water

983
undertakers this will enable the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the director general to judge whether a company should be retained in independent ownership on the basis of performance rather than asset avalue.
Finally, the asset value of limits of the Fair Trading Act was surely not conceived in the context of a monopoly industry where regulation will essentially be the most important form of competition which will protect the customer. I believe that it is appropriate in these circumstances that all companies should be included for the reasons that I have given. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend be so good as to elaborate a little on what he means by "performance"? I can see the importance of performance in this context, but it could mean one of several different things. Could he explain what he means by the performance of the companies in this context?
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: Simply the performance which the statutory companies have always sought to give. The statutory water companies have always asked that they be compared with other statutory water companies, not so much with the regional water authorities because that would be somewhat unfair as there is a difference. We have always asked to be judged on our efficiency, on our prices and on the way in which we have served the customer. I believe that that comparison must continue, after the Bill is enacted and that the comparison can be made but can be made fairly only if all companies are included.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble friend very much.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who has been involved in the UK water industry for many years, has argued eloquently in favour of water merger control regime applying to all appointed water undertakers. His amendments seek to remove the £30 million assets value test for automatic reference of water company mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Amendments Nos. 257A and 257B would remove the subsections precluding a reference if the asset value of the target company does not exceed £30 million, or the bidder owns no other water enterprises with assets worth more than £30 million. Amendments Nos. 257C and 257D are consequential. They would remove subsections 29(5) and (6) which define the basis on which asset value is to be calculated. The overall effect of my noble friend's proposals would be to bring all water company mergers within the scope of the merger provisions, irrespective of the size of the companies concerned.
Since the merger provisions are to apply to all qualifying mergers taking place after 11th January, they would also call into question any mergers involving smaller statutory water companies that have taken place since that date.
We have considered very carefully the case made by my noble friend, which was foreshadowed in his
984
Second Reading speech. We understand his concern to see that smaller statutory water companies are not disadvantaged compared with the larger enterprises. But to talk of advantage and disadvantage in this context does not seem to us to be appropriate.
I should perhaps remind the Committee of the purpose of the special water mergers provisions. Because water is a natural monopoly in the product sense, after privatisation competitive forces will consist chiefly of rivalry for the management of companies. Privatisation will create a market for corporate control of water companies in which less efficient managements can be replaced by more efficient ones. The Government see this corporate rivalry as a key advantage in the privatisation of the water industry. In general therefore we wish to minimise obstacles to takeover.
The pressure towards corporate efficiency is relevant also to the role of the director general as regulator of the privatised water industry. He will need to be in a position to make comparisons between the performance of competing managements in assessing their relative efficiency, for example in carrying out his price setting functions. But the director general, in making his comparisons will need to distinguish between factors outside managements' control, such as those inherent in geographical variations, and those, such as managing capital inputs economically, which are within their control. Against this background, there needs to be a cross-section of observations provided by independent water interests across England and Wales, to allow an objective assessment of variations in performance to be made. Undue concentration of ownership in the industry would have a detrimental effect on the ability of the director general to make yardstick comparisons. If a significant proportion of the industry were to come under the control of a few dominant owners who adopted common management practices, the true scope for efficiency improvements throughout the industry would be concealed.
The special provisions for water mergers should be seen against this background. Their object is to ensure that there is both competition in management, and an adequate number of independently owned and managed companies to afford a range of comparisons to the regulator.
My noble friend has argued that the special water mergers provisions should apply not just to companies with assets exceeding £30 million, but to all 39 water undertakers. We do not share his view that the provisions should apply to all water company mergers, regardless of the size of the companies concerned. There is not a case, we believe to set the present structure of the industry in stone, and remove the incentives to better management performance that private sector disciplines—including the possibility of takeover—will bring. It is not necessary for the purposes of securing the information the director general needs to have all 39 appointed undertakers in independent ownership.
My noble friend has also argued that the asset value of a company is not a measure of a company's efficiency. The £30 million asset test in the water mergers' provisions is drawn from existing fair

985
trading legislation. It is a threshold above which the new provisions apply, and not in itself a test of efficiency. It will ensure an adequate number of comparators, without exposing to merger reference companies too small to be vulnerable to reference on asset size gounds under existing legislation.
In closing, we do not consider it necessary for the director general to be able to carry out his functions to have automatic reference of mergers across the water industry. Indeed, we see the possibility of takeover as a positive spur to management efficiency. I know that this is not in line with the desires of my noble friend, but I hope that he will see fit to be able to withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I thank my noble friend for that full response. I am sure he is not surprised that I find it very disappointing. I believe that a good part of his argument on comparison is in fact in support of the amendments. I point out to him once again that the Government inquiry into the efficiency of all statutory companies has shown that some of the smaller companies are very efficient indeed. I know from my own observations in associating with them that a number of small companies are not all that small. They are just under £30 million in some cases.
However, I hope that my noble friend may possibly give some further consideration to this matter. I thank him for his full reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 257B to 257D not moved]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Reference under section 29]:
[Amendment No. 258 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [The Director's register]:
[Amendments Nos. 259 to 262 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 262A:
Page 35, line 47, leave out ("agreement entered into") and insert ("undertaking given to and accepted").
[Amendments Nos. 263 and 264 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 264A.
Page 36, line 4, leave out ("or the commercial interests of any person").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 264A, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C. Clause 31 is concerned with the director's register—I hasten to say not a register of directors, but a register maintained by the Director General of Water Supplies, which has the
986
purpose of performing both a regulatory function and a public function. The regulatory function is that the director should keep a proper record of all the major events affecting the performance of his duties, whether they come from him, from the Secretary of State, from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or from the undertakers themselves. The public function under subsection (4) provides that the contents of the register shall be made available under certain conditions.
Subsection (2) contains the details which are to be given in the director's register. It is worth saying a word or two about this matter, because it is a finite list. It is not a list containing a range of items from which the director may subtract or add to. All these matters must be on the register so it will be recognisable with a fixed index giving access to a fixed range of information. First, paragraph (a) requires to be registered,
"every appointment … every termination or transfer … every variation of the area"
for any company. Paragraph (b) requires that the register must contain,
"every direction, consent or determination given or made under any such appointment by the Secretary of State, the Monopolies Commission or the Director himself".
Paragraph (c) requires,
"every final order… every provisional order… every revocation of such a final or provisional order and every notice under subsection (6) of that section"
That is a reference to Clause 20.
Paragraph (d) requires,
"every agreement entered into by the Secretary of State … for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) of that section".
The Committee will recall that the wording of Clause20(5)(c) was amended by a government amendment agreed to by the Committee this afternoon.Paragraph (e) requires,
"every special administration order and discharge of such an order".
These are not only finite items of information. They are also items of information, each of which, it can be argued—and I do argue—are matters of public concern from which no derogation should be possible. Yet somehow in subsection (3) we have the phrase,
"or the commercial interests of any person"
which enables the Secretary of State to direct the director not to enter that provision in the register; that is, not to enter the details of an appointment or termination or transfer of the area, not to enter directions given under such an appointment by the Secretary of State or the Monopolies Commission, not to enter final orders, provisional orders or agreements in accordance with Clause 20(5)(b) dealing with the information required in order to comply with European Community regulations, and not to enter special administration orders or discharges which are of great interest and must be made available, certainly to shareholders if not more widely.
They are all matters of public interest. The condition,
"or the commercial interests of any person"

987
is not applicable in those cases. I can conceive of no example of a case where the commercial interest of any person should override the interest of disclosure of matters which are almost certainly of public knowledge or their inclusion in the register.
Earlier this evening Members of the Committee on the Government Front Bench made considerable point of the fact that the director has very wide duties to publish information coming to him and the decisions that he makes. Why should the Secretary of State have the power under subsection (3) to direct that information should be excluded from the register on the grounds that it is against the commercial interests of any person? I could understand if it was against the public interest but for it to be against the commercial interests of any person appears to be quite inappropriate. Amendment No. 264A would remove that condition.
I ask Members on the Front Bench whether this is a left-over phrase from some time in the dim and distant past in another place when the register was more widespread or when there was an additional provision stating, "such other information as the director sees fit". However, with a finite list, all of it information which ought to be public knowledge and in many cases already is, though perhaps in a less convenient place, it appears to be quite inappropriate to have that caveat and the possibility of excluding information.
Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C appear a little clumsy but they come to the right point. We are confirming that the contents of the register shall be made available to the public, as stated in the subsection. However, the amendment states that such availability should not be subject to the payment of charges. In our view it is perfectly proper to make charges for a copy. That is common in central and local government and elsewhere. But actual inspection of the register without taking a copy appears an inappropriate occasion for making charges. It appears to diminish the value of the register as an indicator of public confidence. We hope that the Government will see fit to accept these two amendments and agree that access to the register should be without charge. I beg to move Amendment No. 264A.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 31 requires the director general to maintain a register of key documents and decisions relating to the appointments of water and sewerage undertakers. The register will hold details of appointments, terminations, variations of appointments and of modifications of conditions of appointment. It will also hold information about directions, consents and determinations given by the director and details of enforcement orders made by the director and undertakings given by the appointed companies under Clause 20. Subsection (3) of the clause empowers the Secretary of State to direct the director, in certain circumstances, not to include a particular entry if he considers it to be against the public interest or against the commercial interest of any person. Amendment No. 264A seeks to exclude this latter consideration.
The amendment takes an unreasonable view of commercial interests. The protection provided by
988
the Bill as drafted would apply to either an appointed company on which an entry was to be made in the director's register or to any other company or individual whose interests could be damaged.
This does not mean that where disclosure is not to be made in the register the commercial interests of the company are to be put before the public interests. The company is not protected in the sense that it will be allowed to withhold the relevant matters from the director on the grounds of their commercial sensitivity. Matters which must be disclosed to the director will be so disclosed whether or not they are to be included in the register.
The Clause as drafted gives the Secretary of State a discretion to issue directions. It is for him to judge whether information should be publicly available. Both the Secretary of State and the director can of course take relevant unpublished information into account in taking their decisions.
The amendment is therefore unfair. And as the subsection as it stands is in line with comparable provisions with the gas and telecommunications Acts I see no reason why the Water Bill need be different.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C. Subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 31 set out the practical or, if you like, housekeeping requirements of making the register available to the public and providing for certified copies to be made of the contents of any parts of, or extracts from, the register. The effect of Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C would be to remove from subsection (4) of Clause 31 the power for the Secretary of State to make an order which would allow the director to make a charge to the public for access to the register and to require that such inspections should be free of charge.
While we envisage an order under subsection (5) setting a fee for providing copies of documents of 10p per page, subject to a minimum charge of £1, we do not at present envisage charging for simply inspecting the register. It may be that, as the registers grow in size and we obtain a clearer picture of the burdens placed on the Office of Water Services by inquirers seeking particular documents among the 39 appointments, we shall have to review that position.
I am not agreeing that the clause should be amended. However, in the first instance we propose to view access to the register as a part of the cost of running the water services office recoverable through fees to appointees. It is for those reasons that I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The fact that the Minister and the Government are only replicating provisions in previous Bills is no justification for putting them in this Bill. The Minister must tell us a lot more about the kind of entry which is held by the director to be against the commercial interest of an applicant and which therefore should be excluded. That seems to be an extraordinary matter. The fact that that is in gas legislation and other measures is no justification here.
We do not doubt that all material information will be made available to the director, but the Minister

989
invites the Committee to say that some of that information may be deemed by the director—and nobody else—to be against the commercial interest of the company. Surely it is up to the public to decide whether details about directors are helpful or unhelpful. Can the Minister perhaps give us a short list of about 10 illustrations of the kind of information that is given by an applicant and which is deemed by the director to be against the commercial interest if published? We need to have some information. Otherwise, the Minister is not treating the Committee with the respect that it deserves.
I can understand that some information will be very sensitive, but that must be of an extraordinary character before this Committee should accept that the director shall decide that that which is known to him and the company shall not be made known to the public. The Minister must know that all sorts of tales will get about. It would be a terrible situation if, sadly, one day that company is found derelict in some way and it is then revealed publicly that some evidence of a past misdemeanour or malpractice not only took place but was furnished to the director and that he or she in his or her wisdom decided to withhold it and that that could have materially stopped people from investing in the company. I hope that the Minister can satisfy the Committee on the points that I have raised.
The Earl of Arran: With regard to the exclusion of information from the register, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that we shall consider this carefully and if we cannot identify a convincing example we shall return with an amendment on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That sounds a rather better answer than that which we received earlier and I am content to leave it at that. I cannot imagine how any of the items in paragraphs (a) to (e) could possibly give rise to the need for the proviso contained in the phrase which Amendment No. 264A removes. I shall be very interested to see what examples the department comes up with. Of course, who is convinced is another matter. What may convince the Minister may not convince us.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to seek advice between now and the Report stage on an entry which was against the commercial interest of the particular person but which nevertheless would be in the public interest to include in the register.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made my point much more succinctly and better than I was able to do. We look forward to hearing what the department has to say with great anticipation but without any necessary assurance that we shall agree as to what is a convincing example. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 265 to 267 hadbeen withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I hope that Members of the Committee will feel that this is an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill until five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill
7.3 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Blease.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
7.4 p.m.
Considered on Report.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.5 to 8.5 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 32 [Duty of undertakers to furnish information to the Secretary of State]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 36, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) The information required to be furnished under this section to the Secretary of State shall also be furnished to the Director.").
The noble Earl said: I am intrigued as to why the director has not been included in this clause. Of the 25 clauses that make up Chapter I, this is about the only one from which he has been excluded. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at the beginning of today's proceedings, under Clause 20 the director is the enforcement authority. Clause 32(5) refers to Clause 20 but in this case makes the Secretary of State the enforcement authority.
To enable the director to carry out his functions it is essential that he be included in this clause, because he will need to have the information that the Secretary of State has the right to ask for under Clause 32. Equally, the director will need the power to require information in the following clause, Clause 33. Although my drafting may not be very good, with those few words I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: With a few more words I hope to be of assistance to my noble friend.
The purpose of Clause 32 is to enable the Secretary of State to obtain certain information which he may need from water and sewerage undertakers. This amendment would require such information to be copied to the director general. In practice, the director general will be able to obtain all the information which he needs under Clause 33, where there is a potential enforcement issue, or under the various conditions of the licence. For example, under condition B of the licence the appointee must provide various information in relation to the director general's functions of price control. There are other information provisions in conditions D, E, I and K of the licence.
We are satisfied that such powers will enable the director general to obtain all the information that he needs for his functions. We do not think that we need to burden him by providing him automatically with copies of information which the Secretary of State might wish to obtain by using the powers in the clause for purposes of no interest to the director general.
I hope that those words will be sufficiently convincing to enable my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I may say that have been a little surprised by it, and tomorrow I shall carefully read what he said in Hansard. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Power to require information etc. for enforcement purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 269 to 275 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Publication of information and advice]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey, moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 38, line 11, at end insert ("including information concerning the functions of any undertaker under section 8").
The noble Lord said: Clause 34 is a curious clause. It refers to the publication of information and advice. It provides that the Secretary of State may arrange for the publication, in such form and in such a manner as he considers appropriate, of information relating to any matter as may appear to him to be in the public interest to publish.
If we are going to have this amendment at all, it seems to us that the amendment ought to be a little less all-embracing and a little more precise about what should be included. We have no objection to publication. I think that is obvious. We do not think that the Secretary of State should not be empowered to arrange for the publication, although I have known very few Secretaries of State who have waited for statutory authority in order to publish such matters as they think appropriate. The present Secretary of State for the Environment has got himself into certain trouble with the courts for publishing information—or some might say misinformation—about the so-called poll tax. I have not been watching the tape to know what the courts have said about that matter, but the publication of information which the Secretary of State authorised did not require a clause in the Local Government Finance Bill to force him to say so. However, we have the clause and we have the provision for publication of information and advice. In so far as it is there, I suppose that we have to welcome it and look to improving it.
What is interesting therefore is that although it is all permissive and the Secretary of State can do what he likes—which is a theme of this Bill as of most legislation these days—what it does not do is to specify that the most important information so far as concerns most people in this country should be included in the information on environmental and recreational duties included in Clause 8. We take the view that it is in the public interest that environmental and recreational information should be included in the provisions of Clause 34, and that that should be spelt out in the clause. This would give the Secretary of State all the encouragement that he may need to be open with the public about the environmental and recreational effects of water privatisation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: This amendment is well worth pursuing. It is wide open for the Secretary of State and the director general to do exactly as they like with regard to public information. Let us tie it down a bit more. We know that the Government are bringing forward an amendment at Report stage to deal with the concerns that have been expressed earlier about environmental problems, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. Let us tie it down a bit more by accepting this amendment. It seems to me to make a great deal of sense and to put some vim into the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this amendment is to secure that the power of the Secretary of State in Clause 34 to arrange for the publication of information connected with the performance of the functions of water and sewerage undertakers covers information related to their duties under Clause 8.
I can assure the House that we believe that the amendment is not necessary. The power to secure publication of information about performance of Clause 8 duties is already there in Clause 34. The term "functions of the undertakers" refers to all those things which the companies are required by the Bill to carry out, and the duties in Clause 8 are included among them.

993
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that in his opinion Clause 8 was the most important clause with regard to the functions. We are talking about a general provision in Clause 34 which covers all functions of the undertakers. It would be unfortunate to refer to one particular function, for we believe that the effect would be to cast doubt upon the generality of the provision. It is for those two reasons that we urge the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am interested to hear what the Minister says; but he has not answered the question with which I introduced the discussion on this amendment. What is it that the Secretary of State could not do with regard to publication or advice which would not be available to him without the existence of this clause? What powers would he be denied if this clause were not to stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: As I said in the second part of my reply, it is a general provision and required as such in order to clarify for the purpose of the various undertakings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The phrase "a general provision in order to clarify" has a sinister ring. It reminds me of an answer which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was obliged to give in a debate on an amendment last week. He said that the provision had no extra effect on the Bill and was only required for the purposes of clarification. Since clearly it did not clarify the Bill, it left the Government open to the charge that the provision that he was then talking about was a bit of waffle and not required at all.
I suspect that the whole of Clause 34 is waffle and that if we were to carry a Motion that Clause 34 should not stand part of the Bill, the Government would not turn a hair because there would not be a single piece of information or advice which the Secretary of State could not give without this clause. I accuse the Government in this case of unnecessarily prolonging the Bill and putting into it material which sounds good, because it seems to conform with ideas of freedom of information, but which has no effect whatsoever. I am reinforced in that view by the Government's earlier refusal to agree with our amendments to Clause 31, although I concede that the Minister gave a very valuable undertaking to see whether he could come up with any examples of what should not be published under Clause 31.
This clause has no real effect. In the circumstances, I suppose that amending it in this way to draw attention to the most important information which ought to be included is probably not of the first rank in importance in our amendments. Therefore I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw it. However, I ask the Government to look back at the clause to tell us what it says, whether it is necessary to the Bill and whether it brings anything to it other than "a general provision for clarification". That is not the way to produce legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 279A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Publication of reasons for application to change price formula.
.—(1) Where any application is made lo the Director by a company holding an appointment under this Chapter, relating to a proposed variation in charges to consumers, the company shall publish a statement, and send a copy to the relevant customer services committee.
(2) A Statement published under this section shall include reasons for the proposed variation, and ari assessment of the likely effect on—

(a) levels of consumption of water or other services; and

(b) charges to persons on low incomes.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey deals with the publication of reasons for applications to change the price formula. It would require any undertaker making an application to the director for a variation of the charges paid by consumers under the formula in the appointment to publish a statement of the reasons for the proposed variation and to send a copy to the relevant customer services committee. The statement should also include an estimate of the effect on levels of consumption of water or the other services affected by the charges and an estimate of the impact of the new charges on persons on low incomes.
The reason for the first requirement is simply that no statement has ever been forthcoming from the Government as to whether this Bill is intended or expected to increase, decrease or keep at the same level the current levels of consumption of water. This is not an idle question. Apart from the needs of the water supply industry to meet demand, the level of flow in the sewerage and flooding systems can have a significant effect on the efficiency of those systems. If flow diminishes, particularly with broken sewers, the effect can be increased blockages.
As regards subsection (2)(b) of the amendment relating to persons on low incomes, it is obvious that an increase in charges will impact most severely on those with the least ability to pay. The amendment is couched not only in terms of the financial effect on such persons but more seriously in terms of public health arising from the possible under-consumption of water by those least able to afford it in a metering situation. Some people might say that we are painting too black a picture and stretching the point that no one is going to deny himself water which is needed for domestic or personal use. If it is needed people will get it and pay for it.
The evidence is that that is not the case. There are people who should buy food of a certain kind in order to maintain their health and that of their children. But sometimes that does not happen. There are other illustrations. For example, a prudent person would not deny himself certain facilities because they are needed for health. I am not going to speak about poverty having been eradicated or say that there is no such thing. I shall not push the John Moore line on this subject except to say that genuinely and to my knowledge in the community

995
in which I live I can go to a number of areas and a number of people who in my view will be hard put to decide whether the money required for an increased water charge should have the first call on their purse or whether it should go towards something else; for example, food, clothes, entertainment or transport.
I ask the Minister to accept the point that in order to ensure that people understand why the charges have been increased or varied we need some assessment of the impact of the increase or variation on the users of water. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 279A would insert after Clause 35 a new clause requiring an appointed company to publish, and to send to the relevant customer services committee, a statement giving the reasons for any application to the director relating to proposed increases in charges. The statement would also have to include an assessment of the likely effect on the levels of consumption of water or other services and on charges to persons on low incomes. The intention of the amendment is referred to in the descriptive side-heading to the clause:
"Publication of reasons for application to change price formula".
As drafted the clause does not refer to a price formula, so the clarification of intention is important.
Condition B of the model instrument of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers, published last December, sets out details of the intended charging formula. Increases in a basket of charges will be limited annually to no more than an amount linked to the retail prices index.
As has been explained in earlier debates, the condition provides for the Director General of Water Services to adjust the limit to reflect changes in the obligations of the undertakers imposed; for example, by new regulations or a decision to impose tighter controls on discharges from sewage treatment works where there are such imposed obligations. It is reasonable that the cost of services to customers should reflect the change in the task of the companies. Similarly, if there are other substantial changes in external circumstances outside the control of the companies given that the appointed companies have no option but to continue to discharge their functions, it is reasonable for such changed circumstances to be reviewed by the director general with a view to adjusting the level of charges where necessary. The condition of appointment accordingly makes provision for applications to the director general to determine what change should be made to the charges limit.
The director general will check carefully what change there is in the circumstances affecting the company, the change in the costs they are required to meet, and assess the change to be made to the charges limit. In the case of imposed obligations this will be an essentially technical matter. In the case of other changes in circumstances the director will again face largely technical matters but he will also be guided by his duty in Clause 7 of the Bill (which we have discussed at some length in earlier debates) to ensure that companies are able to discharge their
996
functions properly. His determination will be in the form of a change to K in the RPI plus K limit, not controls over specific tariffs. The ban on undue discrimination in condition D of the model instrument of appointment will ensure that individual tariffs are fair to the various types or classes of customer.
The proposed new clause does not match up well to this process. The director's considerations will rightly be focused on costs and the ability of companies to continue proper discharge of their functions. However, these will not usually be matters on which he can be helped by expressions of views. It will be for the director to ensure that he does take account of customers' interests and he can publish material or undertake consultations in appropriate cases.
As regards those on low incomes, no government, including the last Labour Government, have ever accepted that a system of rebates, for example, should be available to help low-income households to pay their water charges. If rebates were available the cost would have to be recovered from customers as a whole. Water undertakers operate budget payment plans to help customers pay their bills and the revised disconnection codes of practice give additional emphasis to this. Those on low incomes can also apply for income support. When the income support levels were set in April 1988 the total amount spent in supplementary benefit for water charges, uprated to 1988–89 estimated expenditure, was included in the money available. Therefore, income support does take account of water charges although the amount to cover water charges in each personal allowance is not separately identifiable. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the Minister says that our amendment does not match up well with the procedure under the RPI plus K formula, I take that as a compliment because that formula is so patently flawed (as we have seen in discussions in Committee) that anything that matched up well with it would itself be flawed. What astonishes me is that the Minister sees fit to describe this as a technical matter. It is far from that. We have a price-setting regime under privatisation which in effect allows the water company undertakers to appeal to the director general and the Secretary of State for increases in water prices almost without let or hindrance and at any time they see fit. There is to be no appeal against increases in water prices on behalf of the consumers.
It is suggested in this amendment—and it is a modest proposal—that those who are applying to take more money from their captive customers (that is what these monopolies are doing) should give their reasons for doing so. In reply to that, the Minister read out a rigmarole of objections even to that simple proposal. It beggars belief that the Government can seriously object to an amendment of this kind.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I do not dispute for a

997
moment that the director will be very careful in discussions with the companies to examine and make sure that the charges they wish to revise are reasonable, prudent and careful. All I am asking is for the noble Lord to show as much concern for the interests and welfare of the lowly paid and the poor as he will be showing for the companies. The companies will be coming to the director from time to time to put the case for increasing the charges. The director quite properly will have to examine it. The case will be made; I imagine that the director will accept it. He will make sure that the welfare and wellbeing of the company is protected when it is detrimentally affected. The amendment asks for the reasons to be published and for the impact of the increases on the lower paid to be borne in mind.
The noble Lord has failed to deal with a point. We honestly believe that the cost of water will increase. The Minister sought to allude to the fact that action had not been taken by a previous administration in the way of rebates. The cost of water then was infinitely lower than it is now and infinitely lower than it will be next year and the year after. The impact of the Bill on costs and on services will be great. It would be terrible if people were to wash less frequently or if things such as street cleansing were to happen less frequently. That will be the case when the cost of the service increases.
I do not dispute that there will be reasons for the cost increases, not least because of the burdens placed upon the companies to meet obligations imposed by the Government and by the EC. We are asking for the reasons to be published so that people can understand. The Minister is a little squeamish. He wants to protect the companies from having to justify to the public what he will ensure they justify to him. That is not the way to get the public to understand. Does the noble Lord believe that if the public knew exactly why the increases had been made they might think they had been conned? However, that is not the case we are making.We say that the public who pay ultimately should know precisely what and why they are paying. The noble Lord has certainly not satisfied me. I shall read carefully what he said and perhaps at a later stage we shall come back with another amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Reports by customer service committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 280 to 282 hadbeen withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 39, line 20, leave out ("The Director may") and insert ("Subject to subsection (4) below, the customer service committee may require the Director to").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 283 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 285 and 286. The object of these amendments is to give the customer service committees the power to publish their reports. The clause as it stands gives the director complete editorial control over the
998
publication of CSC reports, allowing him to decide whether or how to publish them. We are back to the daisy petals again.
My honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning said in December 1988 at the National Consumer Council's conference on regulation of the public utilities:
"The director general's task will be to hold the balance between consumers, the licensed water companies and their shareholders".
Clearly, this will be a difficult balance to strike. But it is important that all these interests should be taken into account when fixing ceilings to company charges and monitoring the quality of operational performance and long-term asset planning. From time to time he may be balancing the interests of the shareholders rather more than those of the customers. There could be occasions when interests conflict. I am proposing these amendments in case at any time, this should occur. My noble friend the Minister, who is sadly not here, has told me that we are pre-supposing disagreements between the director and the CSCs. I can only say that this is an imperfect world and I have not yet met anyone who never disagreed occasionally. The amendments mean that the CSCs would not be left muzzled and unable to publish their reports. This would be as effective as employing a doberman to warn off intruders and then muzzling him so that he could not bark.
It may be of interest to the Committee to compare the independent Gas Consumers Council, which regularly publishes disconnection figures, reports and press releases on matters of concern to gas customers, with the telecommunications advisory committees, which have amazing names like ENACT—the English national advisory committee on telecommunications—and DL, relating to disabled and elderly people, which hardly publish anything at all. Customers of water and sewerage services need to be certain that their interest in important and indeed vital issues such as charges, metering, water quality standards, compensation, sewerage and the control of disconnection will not only be promoted but will be seen to be promoted. It is no use feeding the geese on the Capitol with sherry-soaked raisins. They must have their own voice which they can use. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like briefly to express my support not only for the content of the amendment but for the way in which the noble Baroness moved it. She was both concise and poetic, as is her wont.
The whole issue of the customer service committees, their powers and responsibilities, is one we have addressed on a number of occasions as we have been dealing with the Bill. I am far from satisfied that we have dealt with it adequately yet. We have approached it on several separate occasions but we have not reached the heart of the matter. Whatever the noble Baroness may decide after listening to the Minister it is appropriate that I say now that we on these Benches will certainly want to return at a later stage to the powers of the customer service committees.
Lord Addington: I wish to add my support to the noble Baroness's amendment. In doing so I should like to reiterate much of the sentiment contained in her speech. The customer service committees are the effective redress between a monopolistic supplier and the consumer. Water is a natural monopoly. There must be some redress for the consumer. The voice of the consumer should be as independent as possible and should have as much access to the public as possible. I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Strange. I join noble Lords opposite in congratulating her on the way she moved the amendment. A customer service committee is somewhat analogous to the users' consultative committees that were set up under the nationalised industries' legislation. Each of those committees used to publish an annual report. There was never any question about it. They were required to publish an annual report.
I do not know quite what incidence these reports will have. Clause 36(1) says:
"A customer service committee shall prepare a report on any such matter as the Director may require".
That indicates that there will be reports on specific and perhaps quite detailed matters. Under subsection (2) there will be an annual report which must be prepared and sent to the director—a copy of it, at any rate—and it would be very surprising if that annual report could not be published. However, it may be of great importance to local consumers of water to know that any complaints which they have referred, either to the director or the customer service committee, are being properly dealt with and with what result.
Therefore, although it may be that my noble friend on the Front Bench is not in a position simply to say, "Yes, we agree with these amendments", I hope that he will not give a negative reply. I also hope that he will undertake, in any event, to have the matter considered between now and the Report stage. I say that because to me it is unthinkable that if the customer service committee considers that a report should be published, that should be prevented by statute.
Lord Hesketh: It may be helpful if I first explain the nature of these reports. They will be of three main types: first, a report on any matter on which the director requires advice of a customer service committee; secondly, a report on any matter which appears to a committee to affect the interests of customers of a company allocated to it; and, thirdly, the annual report of a customer service committee on its activities. All three types of report will be of considerable assistance to the director, providing him with the advice he needs in order to protect customer interests and in helping him to ensure that those committees are properly carrying out their functions.
I fully appreciate the strong feeling all round the Committee this evening as regards these three amendments. As my noble friend Lord Renton is fully aware, I am limited to what I can commit
1000
myself to. However, I am willing to say that I should like to take the matter away and consider it, though not necessarily all three amendments. I should like to read what noble Lords have said and to consider the matter without commitment. I hope that that is acceptable to my noble friend Lady Strange.
Baroness Strange: I thank the Minister very much for his unexpectedly encouraging reply. I am indeed glad that I shall not have to divide the Committee at this late hour because otherwise I should certainly have done so. However, if we do not receive a satisfactory reply I shall certainly return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 284 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 287 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 37 [General duty with respect to water supply]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 287A:
Page 39, line 32, after ("of") insert ("wholesome").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 287A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 287B and 288B.This is the occasion when we return to the question of the European directive on drinking water quality which was debated earlier this afternoon and on which the Minister made such an important statement about compliance therewith. Without quoting directly from what he said, I note his claim—which I do not doubt—that it is agreed that the legislative framework for compliance with the EC directive has been established by amendments to the Bill. If there are subsequent opinions which lead me to doubt that claim, I have no doubt that we can return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, at the moment I have no reason to suppose that that is wrong.
I should, however, remind the Committee about the declaration of the reasoned opinion, which, by the way, the Secretary of State wanted to keep hushed up. Indeed, he said in a Written Answer at col. 414 of the House of Commons Official Report on 24th April:
"The deposit in the Library of the recent reasoned opinion would be a breach of … confidentiality".
The reasoned opinion was by that time winging its way round the country. However, leaving that to one side, the conclusion of the reasoned opinion—I assure the Committee I shall not read the whole document—is that the United Kingdom has failed to adopt within the permitted time the laws and regulations necessary to comply with Council Directive 80/778/EEC, and has not respected the

1001
maximum permissible concentrations with respect to nitrates and lead. The opinion states:
"the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the EEC Treaty the Commission requests the United Kingdom to take the necessary measures to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months".
Let us agree, for the sake of this amendment, that the Government have now adopted the laws and regulations necessary to comply with the Council directive, or that they will do so when this Bill receives Royal Assent. However, what the Government are consistently refusing to do is comply with the second part of the requirement in respecting the maximum permissible concentrations as regards nitrates and lead.
I turn back to the Written Answer given by the Secretary of State when he was responding to questions about the Commission's reasoned opinion. He said:
"The Water Bill and the regulations to be made under it will incorporate the provisions of the directive directly into domestic law".
That is agreed, so let us move on from there. He continued:
"We are fully committed to compliance with the EC directive as soon as practicable. Those supplies which regularly fail to meet a standard are being improved and should comply in the next year or two".
When we ask the Government to put a timetable to compliance with the EC directive—in other words, when we ask for the protection of the people of this country, or parts of this country, from excessive concentration of nitrates and lead in our water—we are not given any direct answer. We are given answers comparable to those which the Minister gave the Committee this afternoon. He said that there were all sorts of practical difficulties about the timetable; that a number of factors may limit the speed of carrying out the necessary improvements; that there is a requirement to plan and design projects; to obtain approval, such as planning permission; and that we must order priorities according to the seriousness of the deficiencies which need rectifying.
Whatever we may think about those words, the conclusion that the consumers of water must come to is that the Government are not prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for putting matters right. It is not as if this is a new issue; it is an issue which has been around since 1980. The directive was agreed in 1980 and was to be incorporated into law by 1982. Well, we are there, presumably, only seven years late. Compliance was to be achieved by 1985. Is it too much then to demand that Parliament should take the lead in the matter now; and, as the Government have not done a good enough job, that Parliament should lay down what the timetable should be in order to ensure that our people are protected from an inadequate drinking water quality?
It is not as if such matters are not already under discussion. Indeed, in his Written Answer the Secretary of State said that the United Kingdom has already submitted the water authorities' programmes on nitrate and lead. Therefore the
1002
discussion is already under way. However, he then went on to say that the compliance programmes will be in the prospectuses for the new water companies. That is the worst sticking point; so far as I am concerned. We are being told that Parliament is not good enough to know what the timetable will be and that people do not deserve to know what the timetable will be. It is only in the interests of shareholders, after the Bill has received Royal Assent, that we shall be told what the timetable will be for bringing our drinking water up to standard. That is what sticks in my throat and what I find totally unacceptable.
Therefore in the amendments we propose that there should be a time, between now and the end of the year—that is more than six months—when the Government will have an opportunity to agree with the European Commission a timetable for the improvement of water quality. They should be able to do that. The negotiations are in progress. The Secretary of State has told us so. I cannot believe that it can be difficult for them to do that and to reach agreement before 31st December. If they fail to do that we propose that there should be a generous period of four years—I confess that we thought of making it a shorter period—before compliance must be achieved, with or without agreement with the European Commission. I do not for a moment believe that it will be satisfied with what is proposed in the Bill.
As the Bill reaches a late stage in its passage through Parliament, the people of this country are entitled to the straight answer which they have not had in the past. Compliance should have been completed in 1985. Is it unreasonable now to demand that there should be a timetable (agreed if possible and imposed if not possible) for the period during which compliance should be obtained? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I shall refer to Amendment No. 288B. I cannot see any objection to having the timetable. We are trying to bring ourselves up to a standard. We are setting ourselves a timescale within which to reach a standard. It is a generous timescale, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. The point that strikes me is that if we are part of the EC, we should surely take every opportunity to bring ourselves up to EC standards. In order to ensure that we must have a timescale in which to do it. We from these Benches are keen about the EC, and thus we believe that this measure is wholly commendable and we give it our full support.
Lord Trafford: I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about compliance with the EC directives with regard to water supplies and what he said about lead and nitrates. Those are two examples only. I declare an interest because I am more interested in the effect of aluminium. It so happens that when in water aluminium causes dementia, serious bone disease and so forth in patients with whom I am connected. That is neither here nor there. It happens to be but a small interest compared with this major measure.

1003
I should have been concerned, and might well have given much more support to the noble Lord and his amendments, until a few months ago. My reason for that is, first, as I understand it—I am subject to correction—the Government have moved considerably towards meeting the necessary requirements with regard to the EC directives on the quality of water. In other words, for whatever reason—the noble Lord is entitled to draw what conclusions he likes about that—the Government have done that. The second fact is that a programme has now been put forward. We do not know whether total agreement will be reached with the EC. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he did not believe that it would be because the timescale being offered by the Government would not be satisfactory to the Commission. He is better informed than I am, because I have no idea whether the timescale will be satifactory to the Commission. I too hope that within two or three years something considerable will have happened.
However, I am aware, mainly I must confess through my connections in this field, that it is not an easy matter. There needs to be considerable investment to change the quality, standards and so forth of water. There is not a Member of this place—perhaps with the exception of those from the Liberal Benches—who can claim to be free of all blame in this matter. Investment in the water industry in previous years was not that high and it has not been so during the time of what we call the nationalised water industry. I remember that we received almost no notice of the various changes that it had made which caused us serious problems with regard to the quality and so forth of water.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it stuck in his throat that the Government are going to put this information in the prospectus and not before Parliament. If the Government are moving in that direction and if the timescale is being worked out, unless they publish the information separately, I cannot see how they will produce it, if the negotiations are not complete before the Bill goes through this place, it having been through the other place. It seems to be not unreasonable. I do not see why that fact should stick in the noble Lord's throat. It is not, let me hasten to add, that I am against the fact that we should have standards of water as high as anything requested in the EC directive. It is not that we should not produce a proper programme. It is that we should not be forced by any ill-advised manoeuvre to take what might be, in a technical field, the wrong steps.
It is most likely that during the course of the next weeks or months the Government will come to a reasonable arrangement with the EC, satisfactory to the Commission and the Government, practical for the water industry and satisfactory therefore ultimately to the consumers of this country.
Lord Ross of Newport: The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, pleads eloquently for us not to set firm dates, but the directive goes back to 1980. Surely our job in this place is to look after the interests of consumers and to be honest with investors who may wish to take shares when the authorities are
1004
privatised. It is more honest to put the dates into the flotation documents. If the dates are considered by the Government, the Director General of Water Services and the authorities not to be reasonable, because they cannot abide by them, let us have some alternative dates from the Government. At the moment they are prevaricating. It is our job to get something firm set down in the Bill so that we all know where we stand.
Lord Renton: Of course we all want to ensure that we get water supplies of improved quality in the years to come, but I must confess that I drink tap water all over the United Kingdom, and have done so for years, without so far any visible ill effects. This is important, and it is dealt with in Clauses 52 and 53. The side note to Clause 52 states:
"Duties of water undertakers with respect to water quality"
and the side note to Clause 53 states:
"Regulations for preserving water quality".
Therefore I should have thought that if there were to be an attempt made—these amendments are such an attempt—to strengthen the Bill with regard to the question of wholesome water, the right place for it to be done would be in Clauses 52 and 53. There is nothing in those clauses to prevent the noble Lord, when we reach them, from referring to the matter in some way or other, or by means of a question asking what the Secretary of State proposes to do about the EC directive mentioned in Amendment No. 288B.
I hope that I have got the technical position right, but the noble Lord is moving an amendment to Clause 37 which deals in general terms with the general duties with respect to water supply, and to try to introduce prematurely the question of quality at that stage seems to me to be likely to lead to repetition in the Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of these amendments would be to make the EC drinking water directive standards a standard of performance, contravention of which would entitle customers to a payment whenever the standard was contravened. The contravention would not apply immediately but after a date specified by the Secretary of State which has either been agreed with the European Commission or is no later than Ist September 1993.
Perhaps I may first refer Members of the Committee back to the statement I made earlier today during the course of our discussion on the amendments to Clause 20 tabled by the Government. I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, addressing me for the first time during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, went to some lengths to say that this was a major statement by the Government. He then proceeded to rubbish it a few hours later. I am not quite sure where one stands on that. I then made it quite clear——
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I then had the opportunity to read the statement, for which I am grateful to somebody, which enabled me to be more critical about it than I was at the beginning.
Lord Hesketh: Members of the Committee have also had a chance to listen to it. I then made it quite clear that the Government were committed to complying with the drinking water directive and that a timescale for the programmes would be presented to the European Commission in due course. I am sure that the same proposal is supported by all Members of the Committee. The programmes are now being assessed, and their timescales will be made known when the assessments have been completed later this year.
Water undertakers will need to convince the Secretary of State that they are doing all that they can to comply speedily with the directive. They will have to give formal undertakings which are acceptable to him and keep those undertakings, otherwise the Secretary of State will be obliged to take enforcement action. We must also convince the European Commission that these programmes are acceptable because of its role in ensuring that European legislation is properly implemented.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier on this amendment, we believe that the programmes will be acceptable. However, we immediately run into problems if we start trying to incorporate a compliance date in the legislation, as Amendment No. 288B proposes. That would contradict the date in the EC drinking water directive. It might also signal a much longer timescale for compliance in some cases than was really necessary.
The amendments are also inconsistent with other aims. The basis of the guaranteed standards scheme is that it should be simple to operate, easy for the customer to understand and provide a no-nonsense form of redress. If the scheme were to be extended to include a breach, however small or insignificant, of any of the EC directive standards, that would immediately introduce a major subject for dispute and lead to serious practical implementation difficulties. For example, if the lead standard were exceeded, the customer could argue that this was due to the undertaker's lead pipe. The undertaker could argue that it was due to the customer's lead pipe which in most circumstances is longer. As no sample can be taken at the point where ownership of the pipe changes, there is no obvious resolution. Another example is the unexpectedly heavy use of water from a particular main because of a serious fire in the area. That could stir up deposits temporarily and breach the standard for the colour of the water.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, happily stated that the Government had made no effort to comply with the EC standards. Of course we complied with the standards and for five years the EC said that they were perfectly all right. Then the EC decided to change the method of measuring the standards. So to say that we have made no effort is just not true.
Planning permission is a subject which is often hotly discussed from the Benches opposite. Now it appears to be gaily thrown away—any works, large or small, will be erected without worrying about planning permission because we must get the job
1006
done. There seems to be no interest in improving the technology, even if there are medical implications. There is an assumption which we strongly criticise and with which we disagree that the European Community will not be satisfied with the statement which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described earlier today as "major and important". I very strongly hope that the Committee will resist the temptation to accept these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that the Minister has totally failed to convince me that the fears which I expressed at the beginning are not real fears. He talked about the history of efforts to improve the situation and to secure compliance. I did not say that there had been no efforts; I said that compliance had not been achieved. It is not a matter of making efforts. Even if efforts had been made—which I beg leave to doubt—it is already four years since the date by which compliance should have been achieved. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that the legislation should go wider than nitrates and lead. We have nowhere near reached the stage where the Government are even willing to set a time on compliance.
Parliament has greater rights than that. We are told by the Secretary of State that the compliance programmes, together with costing and timetables, will be included in the prospectuses to be published later this year. That is still possible under our amendments. Parliament must say that agreement must rapidly be reached by the Government and the European Community before the end of this year, even though it is at least four years—indeed it is seven years—since agreement ought to have been reached.
Failing that, there should be a definite period which everybody knows is the end. After that no failure to reach the required standard of drinking water will be permitted; otherwise we will be subject to all the penalties which may be imposed. As the matter stands, the Government are not only resting on their laurels, having secured the legislative requirement; they are going further and refusing to implement the second and the most important part of the EC directive. The people of this country will not be satisfied with legislative compliance; they want to see drinking water made better. Only by this amendment can we force the Government towards a realistic timetable for compliance. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
9.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 287A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents,47.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Airedale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Attlee, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Birk, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Callaghanof Cardiff, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cobbold, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hughes, L.

Russell, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Scanlon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L

Whaddon, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Killearn, L.

Blyth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clinton, L.

Mersey, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 287B:
Page 39. line 33, at end insert—
("(aa) for providing water of a standard of wholesomeness prescribed under section 38(2A) or (2B) below").
[Amendment No. 288 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 38 [Standards of performance in connection with water supply]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 288ZA:
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we return to the familiar issue of "may"or "shall". In this case we are concerned with the regulations which the Secretary of State may make under Clause31 which will be pivotal in determining the application of the duty to supply requirements of Clause 37.
The regulations which the Secretary of State may make concern, first, the extent to which breaches of detailed duties to supply as set out in Chapter 11 are breaches of the general duty to supply contained in Clause 37; and, secondly, whether that duty needs to be supplemented by establishing overall standards of performance. As the matter stands, the Secretary of State has a discretion in these matters. That does not seem to us to be very satisfactory.If Parliament is legislating then Parliament surely has a duty to ensure that it has an opportunity to be clear about the effect of the legislation which is produced. If the remaining proposals of this chapter are to have any clear connection with the general duty in Clause 37, it is essential that we should understand whether the regulations will be made or whether they may be made.
In their own amendments moved earlier this afternoon the Government have accepted that it is proper to say in legislation that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations. They have done so at the behest of the European Community rather than at the behest of the Opposition. So be it, we accept our defeat in that matter with a good grace, as I hope that we all do under such circumstances. We accept that in the past the Government have put forward a powerful case against the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may". In this case there is no such excuse. The Government having delegated to regulation the clear duty which is required of them in the whole of Chapter II and in particular in Clause 31, surely it is the duty of Parliament to secure that the effect of this legislation is produced and that the Government introduce the regulations which are specified.
I hope that the Minister will feel that it is prudent as well as right to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No.288ZA would replace the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 38(1) with a duty to make such regulations.
Clause 37 sets out the general duty of a water undertaker to develop and maintain a system of water supply, and to ensure that such arrangements as are necessary to meet its specific obligations under Chapter II of Part II of the Bill have been made. Clause 38(1) enables the Secretary of State, on the application of the director under subsection (4), to make regulations setting out requirements which, if breached, are to be treated as breaches of the general duty in Clause 37.

1009
That power, and a similar power in Clause 68 relating to sewerage duties, are intended to back up the powers which the director will have under conditions of appointment of the undertakers. Conditions I and K in the model instrument of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers, published in December 1988, provide models for those powers. The director will, under the powers, obtain the information he needs about the overall quality of service and investment in the underground assets in order to judge what is necessary to protect customers' interests in the quality of the undertakers' services. Where he takes the view that those interests cannot be protected without specific enforceable requirements being imposed upon the undertakers he will apply to the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 38(1).
The Secretary of State will be responsible for judging whether such obligations should be imposed. As new obligations may impose additional costs and ultimately higher charges for services the Government take the view that the Secretary of State should be accountable to Parliament for his decision, through the making of regulations as provided for in Clause 38. To convert the Secretary of State's power to make regulations into a duty to do so would cut across his general duties under Clause 7 of the Bill. Under those duties, he would be able to balance, in particular, the interests of customers in higher quality services and lower charges in deciding whether to make regulations as proposed by the director. The amendment should be rejected because it would remove that important discretion. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that we have returned so quickly to the repetition of what I still consider to be quite inadequate reasons for retaining the powers of the Secretary of State to do what he likes in regulation, rather than placing matters, as they should be, on the face of the Bill. I feel strongly that, when we consider legislation of this kind, we should have a clearer idea than we do from the Bill as drafted of what the effect of the legislation will be. However, I understand the last point that the Minister made about the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is a matter that I want to look at more fully. Without prejudice to any undertaking not to bring it back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 288ZB:
Page 40, line11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is a very similar amendment. I move it in the hope that the Minister may find that it has more virtue in his mind than the previous one. It seems that this is a clearer case, where the standards of performance in connection with the provision of supplies of water is something that everyone can understand and which is desirable. It is necessary for those standards to be prescribed
1010
and for water undertakers to pay compensation if the prescribed standard is not achieved. I should have thought that this was without doubt a case where the Minister would be able to tell us that the Secretary of State would prescribe standards of performance. I rather think that he will have to do so if he is to continue to keep the law in accordance with European Community directions. If the Minister is to tell us that the Secretary of State will do that, he may feel inclined to accept the amendment and accept "shall" instead of "may" on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 288ZB would replace the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 38(2) with a duty to make such regulations. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State, on the application of the director under subsection (4), to make regulations which will prescribe standards in day-to-day relations between the water undertakers and individual customers. If those are not met, then these will entitle the persons affected to payment by the undertaker.
The draft regulations which are to be made under subsection (2) are already out for public consultation. These are known as the guaranteed standards scheme and provide for automatic entitlement of domestic customers to the £5 cash payment of credit from the appointed company for each day or event that certain standards are not achieved. Copies of the draft regulations were placed in the Library on 26th April. We therefore believe that it is not necessary to make it a requirement that such a scheme shall be produced. For those reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, again correctly surmised, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister tempts me! I was well arare that the draft regulations were published in April. That was why I wanted the Minister to say, as I believe he has done, that the Secretary of State will introduce regulations to that effect. Is there then any conceivable reason why, faced with the possibility of defeat, he might not agree to "shall" instead of "may"? Is there anything whatsoever to be lost by agreeing to the amendment?
Lord Hesketh: If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right in his assumption, and he very well may be, one could equally argue that there is no reason for it to appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think it is called a stand-up. It is clear that the Government will do the right thing. I do not think that the Committee would appreciate our pursuing the matter to a Division at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 288ZC:
Page 40,line 15, after second ("prescribed") insert ("for the purpose of providing full compensation").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 38. For the benefit of the Committee it may

1011
be helpful if I read out the subsection that we are seeking to amend:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe such standards of performance in connection with the provision of supplies of water as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved in individual cases; and such regulations may provide that if a water undertaker fails to meet a prescribed standard, it shall pay such amount as may be prescribed".
This amendment simply seeks that a sum may not be prescribed unless, in being prescribed, it is:
"for the purpose of providing full compensation".
The Minister and others who closely follow these matters, and certainly the Committee, will be aware that there can be an aggravating difference between the prescribed sum and the total hurt which needs to be compensated. I should like to hear the Minister explain why the Government have not put on the face of the Bill words which would allow the full cost. We know the meaning of the word "prescribed" in these matters, but what do the Government have in mind as likely to be the prescribed amount? Why in fact is it prescribed at all?
We do not want a gimmick. We do not want to be told, as one has been told, for instance, that the Government in general have been talking of about £5 a day for a compensation scheme. We do not want that. We do not want any razzmatazz or ballyhoo about this payment. We simply want people who have suffered hurt to be recompensed in full for that hurt. Why should someone have to meet part of the cost of an injury which has occurred through no fault of their own? Why should the undertaker not bear the whole of the cost? Why should he be let off? The undertaker should be expected to pay the full cost of any loss or loss of enjoyment suffered by a consumer whose supply has failed to meet the prescribed standards. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 288ZC would provide that under the regulations made under subsection (2) there would be payments for the purposes of providing full compensation for failure to meet a prescribed standard.
In putting forward this amendment, I feared that the noble Lord may have misunderstood the purpose and scope of the guaranteed standards scheme. This scheme is there necessarily to apply where it is feasible to guarantee a clearly defined standard to achieve which, if not met, will automatically entitle the customer to a cash payment or credit. The scheme focuses on those aspects of day-to-day relations between companies and customers where at present the customer is not entitled to any compensation for the inconvenience caused as a result of service standards not being met.
The scheme is in addition to existing and new individual statutory rights to civil redress provided under the Bill. Any customer is free to pursue civil redress for loss or damage sustained as a result of breach of the specific water supply and sewerage duties owed to the individual customer under the Bill. It is right and proper that the courts should determine the size of "full compensation". The guaranteed standards scheme is clearly inappropriate on that score.
1012
I suggest that the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is concerned with is the cost of taking civil action. I should reiterate that a new raft of offences will be available. There is also the guaranteed scheme.
On the cost of taking civil action, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is essentially raising a much more general issue which should be addressed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rather than to myself on an amendment to the Water Bill. For that reason I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether it would help if I point out that it is clear from the terms of the subsection, made even clearer by the statement of my noble friend Lord Hesketh, that the regulations will not prescribe compensation. In other words, damage does not have to be proved before the entitlement—and I must call it this, because it looks as though it will be so—to a contribution by way of penalty arises. If the noble Lord introduces the concept of compensation into the scheme that is in the subsection, he may sometimes be depriving people of a contribution by way of penalty that they would receive if there were no reference to compensation.
As my noble friend has said, compensation is something that the courts will decide. Damage or injury will have to be proved before the compensation can be paid. If the courts find it proved, they will then award full compensation in damages. However, on reflection, I think that the noble Lord will find that his amendment is self-defeating.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is inviting me to save myself from my own logic, I am certainly willing to reflect on the issue. However, can the Minister answer the point that I raised? The Bill provides that if a water undertaker fails to meet a prescribed standard it shall pay such amount as may be prescribed. Can the Minister inform us what kind of matters would be included and in what amount? Are we talking of, for instance, £10 or £100? Is there a scale? I should like to know more about what the words on the face of the Bill mean.
Lord Hesketh: The condition of an automatic scheme is that the payment must be prescribed. That is why we fixed it at the £5 level for the guaranteed standard scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The figure is £5. The idea of such amount being prescribed means that it can be changed by order. The £5, for instance, could become £3 or £10. I think that the Minister must agree that £5 is a nominal sum. It is not a derisory sum. However, in the context, can the Minister tell us a little more about what the £5 compensation would cover? What is worthy of just £5 compensation?
Lord Hesketh: The scheme covers delays beyond the period notified by the company for restoring water supplies following a planned interruption of supply; delays of more than 24 hours in restoring water supply following an unplanned interruption which has been notified to the company and 72 hours in the case of a burst strategic main; appointments which are not kept on the day specified by the company to the customer; failure to provide the answer to written inquiries about bills or requests for alternative methods of payment within 20 and 10 working days; and failure to respond to written complaints about water supply or sewerage services by providing an answer within 10 working days and a substantive answer within 20 working days if the matter requires a site inspection or further investigations.
The key is that the fine is £5 per day. I am sure that many Members of the Committee would be very grateful if they were able to receive a similar form of compensation in respect of various other services.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has refreshed our memory, not that he has given any new information. I can recall having heard that information. I am saying that as a consequence of any of those derelictions the cost to the consumer can be measured not just as £5 but in terms of hundreds of pounds. As a consequence of delay or of waiting for someone to call, one may give up a day's work or lose a day's pay and so on. The Minister is telling us that this is a global basic minimum figure of £5.I say that it is a gimmick and part of the sales package that the public is being asked to buy. I do not deny what the Minister has said. His colleagues behind him agree. This has not happened before. It is a new element in the way in which the consumer will get some redress.
I shall read what the Minister has said. I reserve my right to come back at a later stage and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No.288A:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that nothing in regulations made under this section shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted in respect of a failure to meet a prescribed standard.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with the subsection of Clause 38 which has been described so fully by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the previous amendment. I now understand that in the regulations prescribed under the clause—the word "prescribed" is defined in Clause 182—there is the compensation sum of £5 a day. The Minister is nodding his head in agreement.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, that in some circumstances such compensation will be totally inadequate as a result of the failure of an undertaker to comply with the regulations. There is an old case which I hope the Committee will allow me to mention. It is the case of Atkinson v Newcastle and
1014
Gateshead Waterworks Company of 1877. Under the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847 compensation of £10 was laid down as a kind of penalty. As a result of a breach of the Waterworks Clauses Act a fire caused considerable damage, but the court said that as the sum prescribed was £ 10 that was all that the person concerned was entitled to.
The facts of that case are irrelevant—except for the penalty—to the submission that I am making because other clauses of the Bill deal with undertakers having to supply water to put out fires. That is dealt with in later clauses.
The Government have prescribed the small sum of £5 a day and in some circumstances that compensation might be much higher. The Minister said that, without citing them, some clauses in the Bill preserve the civil rights of persons who have been injured or damaged as a result of the breach of regulations. I have been unable to find clauses which are sufficiently general to cover the position that I am adumbrating. My amendment reads simply:
"Provided that nothing in regulations made under this section shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted in respect of a failure to meet a prescribed standard."
The noble Lord gave the general indication that the present Bill contains clauses to meet civil rights arising from damage caused to a person as a result of the failure to meet prescribed standards where that damage was more than £5 a day. I believe therefore that it is simpler and clearer to introduce into the Bill at this stage the general addition to Clause 38(2). It is that although the sum is prescribed in the Bill under the regulations there may be cases where the compensation should be much higher. Therefore the terms of my amendment cover that position and reserve the rights for the person concerned which arise from the failure to meet prescribed standards. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Whatever else may be said in the Bill about preserving the rights of compensation and so forth in the courts, I feel bound to remind the noble Lord—and he made a most interesting speech from his experience as a lawyer—of the rule of interpretation. It is a very ancient and constant rule. It is that you cannot take away people's rights under the common law or their rights of action without express words in an Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord is trying to put right something that does not need to be put right because his amendment states that:
"Provided that nothing in the regulations made under this section shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal)".
I have always thought of civil remedies and criminal penalties. However, that is a small point.
There is no suggestion that the regulations to be made give to the Secretary of State a power—an express or implied power even—to derogate from any right of action or other remedy. Unless the statute were absolutely plain and express in giving him a power to do so, the amendment would be unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend will not agree to these unnecessary words being introduced.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 288A seeks to ensure that nothing in the regulations provided for under Clause 38 should prevent the customer from taking legal proceedings in respect of a failure to meet a prescribed standard. This would cover both breaches of standards to be achieved in individual cases under subsection (2) and breaches of the overall standards of performance under subsection (1).
The amendment is defective since breaches of these prescribed standards are not subject to legal proceedings. Under the Bill, however, there are specific water supply obligations which are owed to the individual customer and which are subject to civil liability. An example would be for breach of the duty to supply water for domestic purposes. I assume therefore that the intention of the amendment is to avoid such proceedings for breach of these obligations being qualified in any way by regulations made under this clause.
We have already provided for this in subsection (6). This makes clear that the obligations imposed on a water undertaker in the following provisions of Chapter II of Part II and any remedies for contravention of those obligations are not affected by any obligation or remedy available by virtue of Clauses 37 and 38.
I should add that the draft regulations under subsection (2) of Clauses 38 and 68, the guaranteed
1016
standards scheme, make clear that payments under the scheme do not affect the other legal rights or liabilities of the undertaker or of the customer. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may say how obliged I am to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for giving me a very interesting and well-known indication of the law concerning the safeguards for individuals on the taking away of rights.
I now find myself rather confused because in his reply the Minister said that these safeguards of civil rights are in this Bill so that under the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, certain parts of the Bill are totally unnecessary. Whether or not that is the case, I am not in a position to give any views at present because the Minister referred to regulations which I do not have before me—and I apologise for that. I did not quite gather the relevance of the clause which he mentioned on a quick look at the matter; but as it is getting rather late, I shall read what the Minister said. I shall again read what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has so kindly introduced into this debate, and I may raise the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 288B:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the duty conferred by subsection (2) above, regulations under that subsection shall include in any standard of performance a requirement for an undertaker to achieve the levels of drinking water quality specified in EEC Directive 80/778 by a date not later than the date specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (2B) below in respect of each undertaker.
(2B) The date or dates to be specified by the Secretary of State by order under this subsection shall be that or those which either—

(a) Not later than 31st December 1989, have been agreed by the Secretary of State and the European Commission; or

(b) Where no such agreement has been reached by the date referred to in paragraph (a) above, 1st September 1993.

(2C) Where, before the date specified in an order under subsection (2B) above, any further terms of a Directive by the European Commission relating to drinking water quality are introduced, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Commission, by regulations establish the shortest timetable for compliance by each water and sewerage undertaker as he considers to be reasonably practicable.").
[Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 40, line 28, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: The amendment probes the Government as to why subsection (3)(d) enables performance standards regulations for water supply to include circumstances in which a water undertaker is to be exempt from such requirements.
Throughout this Bill and on this issue it is essential for the Government to explain to the Committee where it seems that their broad statements of intent are heavily qualified; this is certainly one of them. Amendment No. 290A is all of a piece with other amendments.
Paragraph (d) states:
"prescribe circumstances in which a water undertaker is to be exempted from requirements of the regulations".
The Minister has already tried to persuade the Committee that matters contrary to the commercial interests of some directors of the companies should be free from publicity without the public knowing precisely what they are. Of course, the Government do not idly put matters like this into a Bill but I believe that the Committee is entitled to an explanation as to the circumstances in which those prescribed circumstances would be considered. Perhaps the Minister can help the Committee in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: By providing for an automatic entitlement it would be unreasonable on the undertaker if there were not certain exceptions provided when circumstances outside his reasonable control prevented the service standard being met. That is the main set of exemptions set out in the draft regulations. There are also a number of other exemptions to assist the practical operation of the scheme. For example, where a customer informs the
1018
undertaker that he no longer wishes to pursue a complaint, the undertaker will be exempt from having to pay the £5 where he failed to respond to the complaint within a specified standard time.
Without such exemptions, we should be imposing an unreasonable burden on the undertaker which would increase the cost to all water and sewerage customers. However, I believe that it would probably be helpful to the Committee if I explained the sort of exemptions which we are talking about. They are of a similar nature to those rights under the guaranteed scheme—that the undertaker has cancelled the appointment giving the customer not less than 24 hours' notice of cancellation; that the undertaker holds a record signed by a representative who was instructed to make the visit; that the visit was made on the appointed day and the customer has not established that the record is incorrect; or that the customer has cancelled the appointment.
I suspect that we are not talking about particularly onerous duties. We are referring to reasonable conditions which, when not met, provide a rational reason for having an exemption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. I understood, as he did, that if there are minor and major matters, these are minor. Again, I am satisfied that the director who will be closely watching such things will not lay himself open to a charge that there are matters that would allow an undertaker to escape great responsibilities. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said and I may return to the matter later, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38,as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Requisitioning of water mains]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 42, line 7, leave out ("or parts of buildings").
The noble Earl said: I was very concerned about "or parts of buildings" because of the risk of frost. I am in favour of a mains pipe being inside a building that is reasonably draught proof, but the words "or parts of buildings" mademe think that the undertaker was being asked to put a main through a building where it could get frozen. Although the words "parts of buildings" appear elsewhere, I feel that they are misleading.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to page 79, Clause 70(1)(b), which is the corresponding passage of Clause 40 which we are considering. That clause states:

"(i) premises on which there are buildings; or

(ii) premises on which there will be buildings when proposals made by any person for the erection of any buildings are carried out".

Those are better words than the words in Clause 40. This is a drafting point. One must be aware of frost, which can do immense damage to people's supply of water if pipes burst. That is.why I dislike the expression "or parts of buildings". I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to prevent the owners or occupiers of parts of existing buildings from requisitioning a mains supply of water. This could adversely affect, for example, the owners or occupiers of flats where a house has been converted, or of rooms above a shop or office adapted for residential use.
It is our intention that all owners and occupiers within a water undertaker's area should be able to requisition a mains supply of water. My noble friend Lord Balfour is, as he has just mentioned, concerned that the provision will require a water undertaker to connect parts of buildings directly to a mains supply and that there may be attendant risks of frost damage. Presumably he has in mind supplies to outhouses and suchlike. I can assure him that that will not be the case.
The purpose of this clause is to enable water mains to be requisitioned to provide a general mains supply of water to a particular locality. The provisions in Clauses 42 to 44 set out the quite separate requirements on undertakers and owners and occupiers for connecting individual premises to the mains.
For completeness, I might add that an undertaker will quite properly be required to take reasonable precautions against frost damage by, for example, ensuring that its pipes are laid at a sufficient depth. Equally, where an unusually severe frost may cause pipes to burst and lead to a supply failure, an undertaker has the defence in any subsequent proceedings brought against it for breach of duty that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach. I think that this meets the noble Earl's underlying concern.
This amendment would deprive certain owners and occupiers of an important right. We do not believe that that is the noble Earl's intention, and I hope that he will be persuaded not to pursue the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation that the risk of frost is not as serious as I had thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Duty to make connections to water mains]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 303A:
Page 46, line 20, leave out ("in question") and insert ("consisting in the building or part of a building in question together with any land occupied with it").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 303A, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 303B, 304A and 305.
Clause 42 places a duty on a water undertaker to connect a service pipe to any premises with one of the undertaker's mains for the purpose of providing a supply of water for domestic purposes.
Amendments Nos. 303A, 303B and 304A are technical amendments to clarify the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) which deal with the work that an undertaker is required to carry out in particular circumstances. Amendment No. 305 is a further technical amendment to clarify that in cases where a water undertaker is required to connect a service pipe to a water main, he cannot be required to make that connection by means of a connection to somebody else's service pipe. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 303B:
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("it") and insert ("the main").
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 46, line 25, leave out ("in") and insert ("outside").
The noble Earl said: I should like to explain what I mean by a stopcock. A stopcock is the means of turning water off with a key. Usually a 90 degree turn will turn the water off. It is usually buried well into the ground and fixed on to the service pipe. That stopcock should, in my opinion, be outside the building and not inside. There should be a hand valve inside the building which the house owner can turn off to carry out repairs or maintenance etc.
I realise that there is a general recommendation that from the main any lead-off should have a stopcock at that point. In theory, that sounds very nice, but in many cases the mains pipe runs down the middle of a street and, because of heavy traffic, the street is often being repaired so that any stopcock in the roadway will be covered up very quickly. It is much better to have it on the pavement, particularly if it is paved like most of the London streets. Pavements can be there for a very long time. This is an important point.
Another point that I wish to raise at this stage concerns any person who takes advantage of the Government grant that is available to replace lead pipes with other material, which may be pvc or something else. The person who lays the pipes usually lays them just through the wall of the house. The grant is paid for the replacement from the main to the first tap in the house. At the moment the work done outside is exempted from VAT and it is zero rated. Any work done inside the house should be done by a qualified plumber. That work is done using a different material and is subject to VAT. That is part of my reason for this amendment.
If there is a burst pipe inside the house and the stopcock is inside, in order to be able to turn off the water the undertaker has to gain entry to the house and he will need a warrant in order to do so. It will also probably mean smashing in a door. I can assure the Committee that even a half-inch pipe bursting inside a house can dramatically affect the pressure of water to a great many of the surrounding houses. There may be technical reasons for the wording. I ask my noble friend to ensure that stopcocks are placed outside and not inside the house. Equally, I wish to see hand valves inside the house which the housewife can turn off. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: If my noble friend's amendment is passed it will negate the desired effect, and I shall take a short time explaining why. An undertaker's stopcock will normally be located in the street. This provision addresses the particular case where a water undertaker is required by the owner or occupier to connect premises which abut on a street with a main running through the street. The service pipe enters the building other than through an outer wall of a building abutting on the street and the stopcock on the service pipe is to be located in the garden. The Committee will be aware that the provision has now been amended to clarify that the term "premises" as used here is to be taken to include a building and the land occupied with a building, normally the garden. The undertaker is to be empowered to lay as much of the service pipe as is necessary in the garden between the boundary of the street and the stopcock in the garden. If accepted, this amendment would effectively remove this power. Where the stopcock is situated in the street outside the premises the undertaker is already empowered to carry out works by virtue of Clause 42(3)(a).
My noble friend is, I understand, concerned that a water undertaker should not be able to fit a stopcock inside a building. I hope he will accept my assurance that this is not the effect of this provision as now clarified in its amended form. I am grateful to him for raising the point which I hope he will now accept need be moved no further.
The Earl of Balfour: Once again I am very grateful to my noble friend. For my own peace of mind I am glad that I raised this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 304A and 305:
Page 46, line 47, at end insert ("or in any land occupied with those premises").
Page 46, line 51, at end insert ("; or—

(b) to connect a service pipe to any premises with a service pipe to other premises.").

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Conditions of connection to water main]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 306 and 306A:
Page 47, line 22, leave out from ("disconnection") to end of line 26 and insert ("made by reason of any person's failure to pay any charges, that the person serving the notice has paid any amount owed by him to the undertaker in respect of a supply of water to those premises or in respect of expenses incurred in the making of the disconnection;").
Page 47, line 46, after ("fittings") insert ("used or to be used in connection with the supply of water to those premises, or with the use of water").
The noble Lord said: Clause 43 sets out the conditions that a water undertaker may impose before complying with the duty to make a connection to a water main. Amendments Nos. 306 and 306A
1022
are technical amendments to clarify the effect of the provisions. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 307 to 309 hadbeen withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 48, line 43, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) In this section "meter" means any apparatus for measuring or showing the volume of water supplied to, or of effluent discharged from, any premises.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment should be taken with Amendment No. 350. Perhaps I may briefly explain why. Clause 77(4) gives the definition of "meter" as it is set out in my amendment. At present we are on Chapter II of the Bill, which deals with water only. Chapter III, which starts with Clause 67, deals with sewerage only. Chapter IV, which starts with Clause 74, deals with water and sewerage. In the Bill as drafted there is a full definition in Clause 43(8). The last but one line of the subsection refers to,
"the volume of effluent discharged from those premises".
I believe that this long definition should be in Clause 77 and that the short definition in Clause 77 should become subsection (8) of this clause. It would make the Bill a little easier to understand and would be an improvement. There should not be such an elaborate definition in regard to charges dealing with effluent going out from a house when we are dealing with water only. The amendment seeks to make the Bill clearer for those who have to read it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment would be to remove the definition of fixing of charges in relation to any premises by reference to volume in subsection (8) of Clause 43. We believe that it is a probing amendment.
Clause 43 sets out the conditions of connecting new water supplies to the main. Subsections (1)(c) and (1)(d) enable water undertakers to require, as a condition of connecting a new supply of water for domestic purposes, a meter to be installed or the plumbing to be such that it would be reasonably practical to install one at a later date. Subsection (4) enables these conditions to be applied even if the undertaker has no immediate intention to charge on a measured basis. This is to enable a smooth transition to metering for those water undertakers who decide to move to widespread metering at a later date. It would also reduce the cost and inconvenience of such a move.
Subsections (1)(c) and (4) both refer to the fixing of charges in relation to volume. This is defined in subsection (8) as being the volume of water supplied to or the volume of effluent discharged from premises, or a combination of both these factors or one of them taken in conjunction with another factor such as a standing charge. It would cover the situation where, for instance, the water supply was not charged by volume but the sewerage services were. Given this explanation, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to my attention. I should like to add two more comments. It would be a good thing if water could be metered for two reasons. The first is that the householder—I am thinking mainly of houses—would then pay only for what he used. Secondly, if water is metered it is one of the few ways in which the water undertaker can find out if it is being wasted, because there is suddenly a fantastic reading. Unfortunately—and this is one of the facts of life—if people are paying a fixed charge for water they tend to waste it appallingly badly; indeed, they very often do not bother to repair ball-cocks or other such appliances. That is one of the reasons I think metering is definitely an advantage.
How one can successfully meter sewage, which one wants to flow as freely from a house as possible, is very much another matter. After all, under the metering systems which we have at present water comes in under pressure, as does gas. Moreover, electricity comes in under pressure in a way with a voltage. However, I feel that to attempt to meter sewage would be rather complicated and I think that one could end up with more trouble than the exercise was worth. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Duty to supply water for domestic purposes]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 311 and 311A:
Page 51, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert ("supply having been cut off by reason of any person's failure to pay any charges, that the person serving the notice has paid any amount owed by him to the undertaker in respect of a supply of water to those premises or in respect of expenses incurred in cutting off any such supply;").
Page 51, line 47, after ("fittings") insert ("used or to be used in connection with the supply of water to those premises, or with the use of water").
The noble Lord said: Clause 45 defines the circumstances in which a water undertaker owes a domestic supply duty to a customer. Amendments Nos.311 and 311A are technical amendments to clarify the effects of the provisions. With the leave of the Committee I should like to move the amendments en bloc.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Supply of water for non-domestic purposes]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 52, line 31, after ("new") insert ("or increased").
The noble Earl said: We are now dealing with the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. I feel it is important to ensure that the interests of other people living in the surrounding area are taken into consideration under the provisions of this clause. If you double the diameter of the pipe, you will get four times the volume of water through it. That is
1024
why I feel that the wording of this subsection should read:
"A water undertaker shall not be required by virtue of this section to provide a new or increased supply".
It is as simple as that. I propose the addition of those words because the provision, as it stands, could be detrimental to the person's neighbours. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to support the amendment. I shall give three brief examples as to why I wish to do so. For example, a warehouse alongside a brewery could at present be used as garages and have very low water consumption. The brewery owners could subsequently decide to use that warehouse for bottle washing. As garages, the daily consumption of water in the warehouse could have been, say, 100 gallons per day, but, as a bottle-washing plant, the consumption of water could rise to perhaps 10,000 gallons a day.
A second example is that of a chemist's shop which has no photo-processing unit. It could decide to open such a unit and, again, there would be an increase in water consumption. The third example is this. There could be a cattle trough in a field with very low water consumption. However, the farmer could decide to develop a broiler house for intensive turkey farming and, again, there would be a vast increase in water consumption.
In all those examples if the Bill were to be enacted in its present format the water undertaker would be required to supply this increased, not new, water supply, even if giving that increased non-domestic supply would prejudice its existing obligations or require it to incur unreasonable expenditure in constructing new water works. Could not the wider proviso contained in Section 27 of the 1945 Water Act be repeated in Clause 46? The same criteria should apply to the provision of an increased supply for non-domestic purposes as apply to a new supply.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to extend the circumstances in which a water undertaker would not be required to provide a supply of water for non-domestic purposes. Water is supplied for non-domestic purposes on terms agreed between the person requiring the supply and the undertaker or, where agreement cannot be reached, on terms determined by the director.
The clause currently sets out the case where an undertaker is not required to provide a new supply of water for non-domestic purposes. Those are where it would incur unreasonable expenditure in constructing works or otherwise put at risk its ability to meet its existing obligations to supply water for domestic or other purposes and its probable future obligations to supply water for domestic purposes.
In addition, an undertaker is not required to provide such a supply to property where the water fittings do not meet the required standard. The amendment would extend the circumstances when an undertaker is not required to provide a supply for non-domestic purposes to cover instances where a person already receiving a supply wishes to obtain an increased supply.

1025
The amendment is unnecessary. If the undertaker is concerned that non-domestic supplies could put at risk its ability to meet its obligations, it is open to the undertaker to include in the terms of supply a limit on the amount of water that is to be provided. Indeed, that would seem to be sound management practice. In that way a request for an increased supply would require the terms of the supply to be renegotiated. That would be tantamount to a new supply.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for raising the point. I can assure him that the amendment he seeks is unnecessary as its purpose is already fulfilled in the clause as drafted. I therefore hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Before my noble friend considers whether to withdraw the amendment, will my noble friend the Minister say how many existing non-domestic supplies have such terms already written into them?
The Earl of Arran: I cannot answer that question at the moment. I hope that, with the leave of the Committee, my noble friend will allow me to write to him on that technical point.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is more than a technical point. The argument put forward by my noble friend depends upon the fact that such terms would exist. I understood him to say that unless such terms exist the provisions that my noble friend Lord Balfour is trying to arrange cannot be met.
The Earl of Arran: I have already said to my noble friend that I shall write to him. In the circumstances I ask him to allow that to happen.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported the amendment. I am equally grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am sure that we should all like carefully to read what he said. I am reasonably satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No.312A:
Page 52, line 44, after ("fittings") insert ("used or to be used in connection with the supply of water to those premises, or with the use of water").
The noble Earl said: Clause 46 defines the duty of a water undertaker to provide a supply of water for non-domestic purposes. The amendment is technical and clarifies the effect of the provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.312B:
Page 52, line 47, at end insert ("or

(c) the supply would be a supply provided by means of a direct connection with any trunk main of the undertaker.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides the third condition under which a water undertaker shall not be required to provide a new water supply to any non-domestic premises. Clause 45 contains a provision relating to the supply of
1026
water for domestic purposes. Clause 45 (5) (a) provides that nothing in that clause shall impose a duty on a water undertaker to provide a water supply for domestic purposes directly from a trunk main. In the Bill as drafted there is no provision to the effect that a water undertaker shall not be under any duty to give a supply of water for non-domestic purposes from a trunk main.
Therefore the amendment is intended to bring domestic and non-domestic provision into line. One difference between Clause 45 and Clause 46 is that the latter provides under subsections (2) and (4) that a supply for non-domestic purposes shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed between the water undertaker and the person to be supplied. If the water undertaker and the person to be supplied fail to agree, then the dispute goes to the director for determination.
My noble friend the Minister may argue that the amendment is not needed as the water undertaker could make it a condition of supply that the connection should not be made to a trunk main. If the person to be supplied did not agree with the condition, the dispute could then be referred to the director.
Is it unreasonble that disgreementas to whether a supply should be given from a trunk main should be referred to the director? The undertaker itself should decide whether it is reasonable for a supply to be given from a trunk main for non-domestic purposes, in the same way as the water undertaker makes the decision whether to supply from a trunk main in respect of domestic provision. What is being asked here is that the water undertaker should not be under a duty to supply water from a trunk main. The water undertaker should be free to supply from a trunk main if it feels it is appropriate to do so. Therefore the purpose of the amendment is to amend the Bill to make it clear that a water undertaker is under no duty to supply water for non-domestic purposes directly from a trunk main. The purpose of a trunk main is to move large quantities of water from one place to another; for example, from one service reservoir to another service reservoir or from one borehole to a service reservoir.
I can illustrate the problem which would be caused to one water undertaker if the amendment were not accepted by reference to a situation in Anglian Water's region. Water circulates between three largereservoirs—Pitsford, Rutland Water and Grafham—via a trunk main network. The volume of water in these trunk mains fluctuates depending on the time of year and the availability of water. At certain times of the year the water in these trunk mains may be at a low pressure and thus incapable of giving a water supply to a non-domestic user.
Another example is that there could be a cluster of boreholes from which trunk mains run to reservoirs. The flow of water from any of these boreholes to the reservoirs may not be constant and could be taken out of action by the water undertakers. Again, these trunk mains are not suitable for supplying water for non-domestic or any other purposes.
The important point is that the water undertaker alone has detailed knowledge as to whether it is

1027
appropriate for a direct connection to be made to any of its trunk mains. It seems to be inappropriate for a person proposed to be supplied and the director to have a say in the decision as to whether it is appropriate to make a direct connection to a trunk main. In any event, it is not best practice to make direct connections to trunk mains because the flow of water in trunk mains may not be continuous and may from time to time be at a low pressure. Therefore, water undertakers should not be under a duty to supply water for any purpose from trunk mains.
If this amendment were not to be accepted, is there not a risk that disputes between water undertakers and people asking for a water supply for non-domestic purposes would be referred to the director unnecessarily under Clause 46(4)? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No.312B would enable a water undertaker to refuse to provide a supply of water for non-domestic purposes where the supply would be provided by means of a direct connection with any bulk supply mains.
Clause 46 sets out the cases where an undertaker is not required to provide a supply of water for non-domestic purposes. These are where it would incur unreasonable expenditure in constructing works, or otherwise put at risk its ability to meet its existing obligations to supply water for domestic or other purposes and its probable future obligations to supply water for domestic purposes. In addition, an undertaker is not required to provide such a supply to a property where the water fittings do not meet the required standard.
These are the important considerations an undertaker needs to bear in mind in considering the provision of a non-domestic supply. The question of the source of supply is secondary. There is no overriding reason why a non-domestic supply should not be provided directly from a bulk supply main. If the water in the bulk supply main is not at the right pressure or of the right quality to meet the requirement of the non-domestic customer, or the provision of such a supply from that main would cause particular problems, it is open to the undertaker to seek to impose conditions in the terms of the supply or to suggest that the supply should be provided from other mains. If none is available, the undertaker may be able to refuse to supply under subsection (3). Any disputes over suitability of particular pipes for providing the supply are best resolved by reference to the director who can consider each case on its merits. If any particular technical questions are raised, the director may refer the matter to a suitably qualified arbitrator. Therefore, the amendment proposed is, we believe, not necessary. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will not pursue it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Before my noble friend makes that decision, I wish to ask the Minister a question. I believe there has been a misunderstanding between the terms "trunk main" as used by the noble Baroness, and the term "bulk
1028
supply mains", which I believe was the phrase used by my noble friend.
A "trunk main", which the noble Baroness referred to, is used not only for transporting water under pressure; it also serves as a connection between major supplies. The water in it is not permanently under a predictable pressure; the pressure fluctuates., That makes it highly unsuitable to be drawn upon for immediate supplies. I suspect that this matter needs to be taken away to be looked at because I think there is a misunderstanding between the Front Bench and the mover of the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I am not entirely sure that that is correct. There may be a misunderstanding, but I do not think that the principle changes.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend the Minister gives some thought to this amendment between now and the next stage of the Bill, I think my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has reinforced the point that there is a misunderstanding about the two types of mains. I do not intend to press this amendment tonight, but I am concerned that by not accepting this amendment we are allowing unnecessary and cumbersome references to the director which could be avoided by not placing a duty on the water undertakers. I ask my noble friend the Minister just once more whether he will give some thought to this amendment before the next stage.
Lord Hesketh: I can go no further than to say that I shall read carefully what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that reply from my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.313 to 317 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Duty to provide a supply of water etc. for firefighting]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.317A:
Page 54, line 20, after ("order") insert ("to a standard and in a manner to be approved by the fire authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 317A I wish to speak also to Amendment No.317B. Clause 47 deals with the duty to provide a supply of water for fire-fighting. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Association of Chief Fire Officers and the fire authorities themselves have expressed some concern at some aspects of the Bill. They are not concerned with the basic provision which is that water required for fighting fires shall be provided free of charge. I believe that is accepted as being a reasonable and proper provision. However, those bodies are concerned at some of the

1029
secondary provisions, if I may refer to them in that way.
Amendment No.317A concerns Clause 47(4). That subsection refers to the duty of water undertakers to keep fire hydrants fixed to the water mains or other pipes in good working order and to replace them when necessary. The present position does not sound very satisfactory to me. I am told that water authorities tend, when something goes wrong with a fire hydrant, to replace the whole thing rather than to replace the part which is affected. Those of us who have had dealings with motor garages are familiar with that tendency. It is utterly deplorable and shows a lack of British craftsmanship and all of that, and costs us a great deal more money, but we can see that garages sometimes follow that tendency.
However, we are now talking about private water undertakers and public fire authorities. The amendment seeks to provide that instead of an undertaking having the ability to replace hydrants when it feels like it, or when something is wrong—I should have stressed at the beginning that this is done at the expense of the fire authority, and not at the expense of the water undertaking—the fire authority whose money is being spent should have the right to specify that the repair is carried out to a standard and manner approved by the fire authority. In other words, it should be repaired and not replaced.
That seems to us to be a proper amendment, designed to conserve the money of public fire authorities. Since the fire authorities will pay, it will not cost the water undertakings any more and should not cause any difficulty to them. I hope that the Government will feel that this concession to the fire authorities will not cost anything, either in terms of the purpose of the Bill or the ability of the water undertakers to fulfil their primary objective, which is to satisfy their shareholders' demand for profit.
Amendment No.317B amends subsection (6) of Clause 47 and refers to the case in which fire hydrants are required for fire-fighting purposes other than on a trunkmain. The most common example is a new housing or commercial development. In such a case the law at present requires that the fire authority should provide fire hydrants for emergency purposes at the expense of the fire authority rather than at the expense of the developer.
I am told that this is an anomaly which goes back to an Act of1945, Schedule 3, Part VIII, paragraph 32 of which deals with the provision of fire hydrants. What Parliament was doing in 1945 passing fire Acts I cannot imagine. I should have thought that it had better things to do fighting and winning a war and dealing with the aftermath of that war. I suppose that large-scale fires were of more recent memory than perhaps they are now.
The result is that although private developers in, say, a new housing development, have to pay the cost of all other services, including electricity and gas services, to the properties on the development, for some anomalous reason the fire authority has to pay the cost of the fire hydrants. The amendment would provide that the person requisitioning
1030
it—namely the developer or the undertaker (if the undertaker is responsible for the development)—should pay the cost of providing the emergency fire hydrant. That would rectify an error in legislation which goes back more than 40 years. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend replies to the amendment, I should like to say that I believe there is a need within this legislation for a requirement at least for consultation between the chief fire officer of the area concerned and the water undertaker of the area concerned, for example, fittings, connections, and valves change over a period of time. They are both responsible people, but it would do no harm if the need for consultation were written into the legislation so that they meet and nobody bulldozes somebody else. I am grateful that the amendment has been brought to our attention.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 47 sets out a water undertaker's obligations with regard to water for fire-fighting. An undertaker is required to allow water to be taken for extinguishing fires from any of its pipes to which a fire hydrant is fixed. An undertaker is required to fix fire hydrants on its pipes at places most convenient for firefighting at the request of the fire authority, to maintain the hydrants in good working order and to supply the fire authority with all such keys as it may require.
The effect of Amendment No.317A would be to require a water undertaker to maintain every fire hydrant fixed to its mains to a standard and in a manner to be approved by the fire authority. The Bill currently re-enacts provisions in the Water Act 1945, requiring a water undertaker to keep the fire hydrants in good working order and to replace them when necessary. The obligation is enforceable by the Secretary of State under Clause 20 and additionally breaches of the duty are subject to a criminal sanction.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, and I appreciate, and share, his concern with the essential public safety aspects involved here. I wonder, however, whether the amendment is entirely necessary. The obligation to keep fire hydrants in good working order implies they must be acceptable to the fire authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out. After all, it will be the fire brigades that ultimately will test that the hydrants operate satisfactorily. Fire hydrants are now designed to a formal British Standard specification—BS750—which I understand is adopted by all water authorities and acceptable to the fire authorities. Moreover, there are provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947 enabling my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for firefighting matters, to make regulations—after consulting the fire authorities—providing for uniformity in fire hydrants provided by the water authorities.

1031
We believe that it has never been necessary to make such regulations and we are not aware of any significant problems being experienced by the fire authorities in relation to the maintenance of fire hydrants by the water authorities. I am not persuaded that there is a need for this amendment. However, if the noble Lord has evidence to the contrary, I shall of course be happy to take up this matter with the Home Office.
I should now like to turn to Amendment No. 317B. The Bill provides for the expenses incurred in providing water for extinguishing fires to be met by the undertaker by virtue of Clause 79. The costs of fixing and maintaining the hydrants and supplying keys fall to the fire authorities to bear, except in the case of fire hydrants which can be provided at the request of owners or occupiers of factories or places of business who then pay maintenance costs.
The effect of Amendment No.317B would be to completely change the basis for the allocation of costs between an undertaker and the fire authority. The maintenance and the other associated costs of all new hydrants would fall to be met by a water undertaker's customers or by requisitioners rather than centrally through the block grant system under which the fire authorities operate.
We believe that such a change to a well established system is not justified. The costs incurred by a water undertaker are directly related to the fire authorities' functions and incurred solely at the instigation of those authorities. These are not charges that we believe it is appropriate to recover from water undertakers' customers or from owners and occupiers of premises who may have a requisition to a water main on which the fire authority has chosen to have a fire hydrant located. A fire hydrant serves a public purpose and not one limited to the needs of a particular water undertaker's customers or the requisitioner. Firefighting is a public service which it is right should be supported centrally from public funds, not least in accountability terms. We believe that it is clearly better for fire authorities to continue to be responsible for the costs incurred at their request.
For those reasons that I have outlined, we believe that the amendments are not necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, whether he will consider withdrawing them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two separate issues here. The first is the question of the payment for keeping the fire hydrants in good working order and replacing them when necessary, and the second is the question of development. The first is perhaps the simplest one with which I can deal more quickly.
I am advised by the Association of County Councils that there has been a growing tendency on the part of water authorities which undertake minor repairs to replace a hydrant completely and charge authorities accordingly, rather than undertake the minor work involved. I am grateful for the indication from the Minister that he would listen to any evidence that is brought forward before the next
1032
stage to see whether there is any abuse of that kind. I believe that he will agree that it would be an abuse if that happened when, after all, the fire authority pays for the repair.
I shall ensure that the Association of County Councils writes to the Minister in good time before the next stage and that any evidence that it may have is put before him. I hope that the result will be that he will feel able to agree to this or a similar amendment at a later stage.
The issue on Amendment No. 317B is more complicated because I do not think that the Minister has adequately addressed the concerns that we have about this matter. As between water authorities and fire authorities, it is perhaps a matter which could be thought of as not particularly important between two public authorities. However, in natural justice it seems that those who are making money out of new developments, whether they are residential or non-residential developments, should pay for all the costs of providing the services, which include not only the electricity and gas which they are providing anyway but also the cost of emergency services, such as the fire hydrants and the mains to the fire hydrants which are necessary.
Otherwise it simply becomes the case that the ratepayers who support the fire authority, or as it will be from 1990 the community charge payers who support the fire authority, will be paying for this commercial development and contributing to the profits of those developers. Those are the people who would be requisitioning the main and requisitioning the hydrants. That does not seem to be a very satisfactory state of affairs, even as between two public authorities.
But of course the position after privatisation will be that much different because we shall be talking about a conflict of interest as between a public authority, the fire authority, financed by the community charge payers, and a private body, the water undertakers, or the customers of the water undertakers. I very much regret that the Minister in his reply should have felt it possible to neglect an opportunity to correct an anomaly which has existed for a very long time and not been important but which, without this amendment, would continue to exist and would be important.
I wonder whether, before I finally make up my mind, there is any further indication that he can give which would help me? No, it does not seem so. Therefore, with regret but with slightly less regret in respect of Amendment No.317A, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.317B not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Duty to supply water for other public purposes]:
[Amendment No.318 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DEER: MONITORING OF SLAUGHTER ARRANGEMENTS
  DEER: MONITORING OF SLAUGHTER ARRANGEMENTS
  DSS LEAFLETS: DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS
  DSS LEAFLETS: DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS
  COACHES: ILLEGAL PARKING
  COACHES: ILLEGAL PARKING
  PRE-TRIAL DELAYS
  PRE-TRIAL DELAYS
  MR. CHARLES PITTS
  MR. CHARLES PITTS
  MR. EARL BARTON
  MR. EARL BARTON