Sitting of 18 May 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 May at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
  Orders for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 25 May.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (ByOrder)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    MacBride Principles
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent actions have been undertaken by his Department to challenge the endorsement of the MacBride principles in the United States of America.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The Government's approach to achieving fair employment, set out in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, is clearly much more appropriate than the MacBride principles, which do nothing to create equality or new job opportunties.
    We have therefore taken every opportunity to explain our position in the United States. We are convinced that those who study the subject and wish to assist in the creation of job opportunities and equality of opportunity will recognise the Government's determination and the comprehensive nature of our legislation.
    Mr. Livingstone: Is the Minister aware that, following the Government's consistent refusal to give the House the full cost of the campaign against the MacBride principles, the American press now estimates that the Government are spending £15 million per year to defeat MacBride, which works out at £10 per head for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland and if invested in job creation could create 1,500 new jobs per year? Is it not now counterproductive to carry on with the campaign?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman's question would be amusing if the subject were not so serious. It is most irresponsible of him to ask such a question when in answer to a written question from him on 22 July 1988 I said:
    "Since June 1985 to date the overall cost of assistance to individuals to give evidence has been £86,856."[0fficial Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 859.]
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is not the truth of the matter that the MacBride principles campaign, which is organised in the United States by people who are in cahoots with the IRA, has effectively denied many jobs in Northern Ireland to Catholics as well as to Protestants? Is the Minister aware that caring people in Northern Ireland, regardless of their political and religious views, thank him for countering this vicious campaign and for doing his best to get jobs for people in Northern Ireland, particularly in the black spots?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The way ahead is not to browbeat and hassle companies which provide much-needed employment in Northern Ireland, but to promote further investment in jobs within the much tougher law on fair employment that we are now introducing.
    Ms. Short: Does not the Minister understand that the MacBride principles are based on the Sullivan principles, which were devised in the United States to try to get American companies to use their influence to extend equal opportunities in South Africa? The alliance of people in the United States who back the MacBride principles includes the trades unions, the black community and the Irish community. It is a lie to suggest that it is some kind of Noraid fund. [Interruption.] It is a simple lie. The object is to put pressure on the British Government to do something about discrimination in Northern Ireland. My view is that the Government acted, however inadequately, largely because of that pressure.
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Lady is quite right when she says that the McBride principles were shaped in America with a view to pressurising American companies. In my experience, though, American companies which employ people in Northern Ireland are very good employers and are fully aware of their responsibilities. If the hon. Lady wants to assist the promotion of jobs and fair employment in Northern Ireland, I recommend that she study very carefully the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill which has now emerged from Committee and will shortly be having its Report stage. I assure her that it will go a long way towards promoting fair employment and assisting in the creation of jobs in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: I am sure that no one in the House would want disinvestment in Northern Ireland nor any curtailment of proper flows of investment. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will agree that investors have a legitimate concern as to the eventual circumstances in which their money is used. Therefore, if an agreed Bill

    457
    passes through the House does the Minister agree that its enforcement will be vital and that investors will still have a legitimate interest in examining the performances of the firms in which they have placed their money? Does he believe that the Bill provides adequate means for monitoring that?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Bill in Committee has been extremely helpful. I believe that the Bill which has emerged from Committee will be welcomed by good employers as promoting good personnel practice.

    Security
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the figures for the total amounts of weapons, ammunition and explosives recovered in the last 12 months in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): Since 20 April, the Provisional IRA has murdered three people in Northern Ireland and the UVF has claimed responsibility for one other murder. The victims were a taxi driver, a hospital officer in the prison service, a regular solider and a building worker.
    The determined and courageous work of the security forces has resulted in 103 people so far this year being charged with serious offences, including 13 with murder and 22 with attempted murder. During 1988 a total of 552 weapons, 105,052 rounds of ammunition and 10,424 lbs of explosives were recovered in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bowis: Having had a cache of weapons and ammunition found in my constituency, may I express my admiration for the skill and courage of all those involved in locating and capturing such murderous items? Whenever possible, will my hon. Friend draw the facts, statistics and pictures to the attention of people in America and other parts of the world so that they can see how their money is being used to kill and maim men, women and children in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The House, as well as many people in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, will be grateful to the security forces who have been so successful in finding substantial hoards of weapons and explosives, but there is much more still to find and any information that anyone can provide to assist the security forces will go a long way to help in the campaign against terrorism. Conversely, anyone who thinks that funds might be used by paramilitaries to acquire explosives, ammunition or weapons should realise the terrible harvest of murder and destruction that they reap.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the revulsion felt by decent people in Britain and Northern Ireland at the statements made by apologists for the IRA such as Mr. Gerry Adams who talk about "mistakes" being made when innocent people or members of the security forces are killed? Does he agree that the best way for the people of Northern Ireland to show their revulsion
    458
    for such acts and for the apologists in Sinn Fein is to ensure that decent, moderate candidates are elected to represent them in the European Parliament?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland are sickened by the apologies put forward by the IRA and its sympathisers. The murder and wounding of civilians is part and parcel of the IRA campaign. In those circumstances, it is no use members of the IRA offering apologies because they do not give a damn whether civilians are killed—they are worried only about the bad publicity for their politics.
    Mr. McCusker: As the Secretary of State has been responsible for security in Northern Ireland for almost four years now, what real comfort or reassurance can we draw from the figures behind the smokescreen that the Minister has just put up?
    Mr. Stewart: During my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's distinguished tenure of office, among other things there has been a great improvement in the number of finds of weaponry and explosives in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. In my experience, which is much shorter than that of my right hon. Friend, the efforts of the security forces in the Province have been absolutely outstanding. But for their remarkable efforts and dedication, a great deal more misery would have been caused by the terrorists.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: We are all delighted when arms caches belonging to paramilitaries on whichever side are found, but is the Minister of State aware that the last annual report of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary referred worryingly to increasing amounts of ammunition, particularly rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs, falling into the hands of Loyalist paramilitaries? In that context, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the December 1987 arms shipment to Northern Ireland, whatever its source, was not organised, subsidised or facilitated by South African sources?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot comment in detail on arms shipments that have been delivered for paramilitaries, but the RUC is right to recognises that it is dangerous for such shipments to fall into the hands of people on either side who might use them.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that compensation to those whose houses and businesses have been blasted by IRA violence is being paid as promptly as we should expect in view of the fact that those people are trying to keep their businesses together even though the premises have been destroyed?
    Mr. Stewart: I accept my hon. Friend's point. We do what we can to ensure that these claims are dealt with properly and without undue delay. Unfortunately, one of the significant and common causes for delay is the difficulty of assembling all the information necessary to assess the claims properly. I appreciate the importance of the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

    Education Groups
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has held with education groups.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received representations recently from education groups.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): During the past three months I have met representatives from a wide range of education groups on such matters as education reform, school development proposals and the public library service.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware of the overwhelming opposition to the proposals contained in the document "Education Reform in Northern Ireland: The Way Forward"? Will he tell the House whether the proposals are any more or less unpopular than the Government's plan for National Health Service reforms in the Province?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his information is very poor. Contrary to what he says, there is broad acceptance of the need to improve standards in schools in Northern Ireland and a wide welcome is being given to greater parental choice and involvement in the education of children.
    Mr. McFall: Has the Minister recently met groups campaigning for integrated education? If so, does he believe that the establishment of non-denominational teacher training colleges would greatly assist such aims? If he believes that, why is there no mention of it in the White Paper on education reform in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have met those involved in integrated education. This week I officially opened the latest integrated school, in Newcastle. The "Way Forward" document was not about teacher training, as the hon. Gentleman may well know—that matter was dealt with in an earlier report. The situation in Northern Ireland is generally believed not to have changed since that report was issued, but we are seeking to find ways in which teachers may be trained together more effectively, especially in terms of education for mutual understanding.
    Mr. Pawsey: Further to that last answer, may I ask what encouragement is being given to the development of more integrated education in the Province? Does my hon. Friend agree that such schools would do much to bridge the sectarian divide?
    Dr. Mawhinney: When the draft Order in Council is available, for public consultation—next month, I hope —it will include legislation to permit parents democratically to choose to opt their schools out of existing structures and into an integrated structure. It will also enable us to make money available to help those who want to start new integrated schools, and will lay on the Department of Education a statutory responsibility to foster and encourage the development of integrated education. All of that will be subject to the choice of parents for their own children.
    Mr. Ashdown: I warmly congratulate the Minister and the Government on their work with integrated schools, but
    460
    one issue remains unresolved—that of day one start-up funding, which is to be resolved in forthcoming legislation. Is the Minister aware that two more integrated schools, one in Ballymena and the other in Enniskillen, are being held up because of the lack of resolution on that issue? Will he consider allowing those schools to go ahead with day one start-up funding in advance of legislation, which will be coming in due course anyway?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My understanding is that I do not have the ability to meet the right hon. Gentleman's request. We need the legislation so that what he refers to as day one start-up funding can take place. We have recognised the importance of that. That is why we hope, subject to the will of both Houses, to change the legislation so that the change will be possible. It is up to people in Ballymena and Enniskillen to judge as others have done, whether they want to start the process ahead of the legislation. That is a matter for them, not for me. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his personal words.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister has told the House that there is a wide welcome for the education reform proposals. Does he agree with a senior official from his Department, Mr. Billy Burnison, who recently stated that the reform proposals will not meet the needs of all pupils in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady should read the letter which Mr. Burnison subsequently sent to the Belfast Telegraph, which gave a more accurate account of what he said than that which was originally recorded.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the completion of the review of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a statement on the outcome of the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I expect to announce the completion of the review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to make a statement, following the next meeting of the conference, which will take place shortly.
    Mr. Barnes: We have just had local government elections in Northern Ireland and local authorities have very limited powers there. What is happening about moves towards democratic and devolved government throughout the Province, which were aims of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will practical steps be taken towards that, inside or outside the agreement?
    Mr. King: We have made absolutely clear our interest in trying to encourage elected people in the Province to take greater responsibility for their own affairs. We are seeing whether there is an opportunity for some dialogue to commence. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), is engaged in discussions with a wide cross-section of different interests and bodies to discover where opportunities for progress exist in that respect.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the problems about the agreement is that it operates in so-called secrecy? Subject to normal security requirements, will he take steps to open up the process so that interested parties can play some part in the process? Can he tell the House today of his firm proposals to activate the parliamentary tier of the agreement, for which there is wide cross-party support in the House?
    Mr. King: The parliamentary tier is not a matter for me —it is a matter for the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is involved in that. It is hoped that it can go forward, and I would welcome that. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the agreement being operated in secrecy were not fair. I have made clear my readiness to brief all political parties in Northern Ireland regularly on proceedings in the conferences. One political party avails itself of that opportunity, but the others do not. After every meeting a communiqué is placed in the Library of the House. I am also very willing to respond to any questions or other queries which may arise about the proceedings. Certain matters concerning security are confidential, but otherwise I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Sir William Clark: Following the reference to local government elections in Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend agree that congratulations are due to Mr. Kennedy, the successful candidate in the North Down local election, who stood as a Conservative?
    Mr. King: As the jury is still out and counting, as it were, I do not think that anyone should risk commenting at this stage on the local government elections. I shall not comment until I see the results.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although good relations with the Republic are clearly essential there is nothing in the performance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement so far to suggest that any dramatic new initiatives are called for at this time?
    Mr. King: I hope to put before the House a record of the work of the conference over the past three years. The House will then be able to see the steady progress that has been made in developing co-operation where that is useful and beneficial. The House has just heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State recounting the Garda Siochana's substantial arms finds. Quite apart from the other issues to which we attach importance, that is one obvious area where co-operation has been extremely helpful.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Irish Government that the dates of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference should be fixed and published in advance, preferably with the agenda, so that ordinary people and organisations from both parts of Ireland, especially the North, have an opportunity to make an input?
    Mr. King: I agree with that and I want to see how, within any security considerations, we can move towards that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, recent communiqués have contained information about the next meeting's agenda, or items that would be covered within it. I would be pleased to see people play a bigger part and make some input if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is considering the form and structure of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, will he make sure that he has read the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Conservative party in which he said clearly that devolution and the creation of assemblies in any territories within the United Kingdom would be bad for the Union if it was done unilaterally and bad for this unitary Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind in view of the impact that his proposals may have in Scotland?
    Mr. King: I shall take note of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I also have a note of one or two rather unusual suggestions in a speech that my hon. Friend made with which I cannot readily agree.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome his statement that he hopes to see an opening and widening of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement so that more people can be aware of what is taking place and make an important input into its proceedings, if only through the correspondence columns of the Belfast Telegraph, because in that way we could have a real sense of what is being achieved there?
    In discussing the further measures to be taken to strengthen the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will steps be taken by both Governments to use the machinery to look at the effects of the Single European Act on both parts of Ireland and the consequent social, industrial and economic problems for them by that Act?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have already been giving that matter some considerable attention. We are actively involved in ensuring that everybody in Northern Ireland is aware of the implications of 1992. We have had conferences and discussions with Irish representatives and Ministers so that, where there is scope for co-operation, opportunities can be taken.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratios
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current pupil-teacher ratio in all schools; what it was five, 10 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The 1988 pupil-teacher ratio is 18·4 to one, which is the lowest on record. The comparable figures for five, 10 and 20 years ago are 18·7, 19·5 and 24·3, respectively.
    Mr. Greenway: Is it not clear that there has been remarkable progress under the present Government in the provision of teachers for Northern Ireland? How are the additional teachers being deployed? Are they being deployed to split pupils into smaller groups for teaching, or to widen the curriculum, or both?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that they are being deployed in both areas. We shall have to give further thought to that deployment as education reform proposals are implemented in the Province.
    Mr. William Ross: Is it the Government's intention that integrated schools will enjoy the same pupil-teacher ratio

    463
    as the present system of education or a better one? How will it be possible for parents of pupils in Church-owned schools to opt out into the integrated sector?
    Mr. Mawhinney: We have not drawn any distinctions, in terms of PTRs, between integrated schools and other types. As to Church-owned schools, the proposals will apply to all schools, which will be subject to the democratic votes of parents.

    Women (Pressure Groups)
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has met with representatives from pressure groups working on behalf of women.
    Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the women's information group last year. I had an opportunity recently to discuss employment issues affecting women at a meeting with representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that the working women of Northern Ireland have a crying need for the provision of better child care? Northern Ireland fares worse than the United Kingdom in terms of nursery provision and education. What will the Minister do to ensure that the situation in Northern Ireland at least replicates that in the rest of the United Kingdom—even though it makes the poorest provision for such facilities in the whole of Europe?
    Mr. Viggers: I sit as a member of the ministerial group on women's issues, which considers such matters. We will of course deal with any specific questions about nursery education or creche facilities that the hon. Lady asks. I assure her that the Civil Service as an employer seeks to set its own standards in equal opportunities, but I take note of the hon. Lady's points.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be no better representation of the interests of the women of Northern Ireland than the photograph in The Times today of Mrs. Breige Morgan holding her three-year-old daughter, who was maimed by a bomb in a telegraph pole that was detonated by the IRA, and who cannot have the shrapnel removed from the calf of her leg in case it does permanent damage? Will my hon. Friend join right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House in condemning such revolting acts of terrorism?
    Mr. Viggers: The act of terrorism to which my hon. Friend refers, will, I am sure, disgust the entire House. That photograph will be seen around the world, and will illustrate the impact of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in order to bring to the Province peace, stability and reconciliation.
    Mr. Tom King: We are giving particular emphasis to strengthening the economy, improving the prospects for jobs, encouraging better community relations, and giving additional help to areas of particular need. At the same
    464
    time we maintain the most determined efforts to de feat terrorism, and to encourage a more constructive approach to political development.
    Mr. Gow: Is it not true that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has alienated the majority without reconciling the minority? Will my right hon. Friend follow a policy whereby the Province is governed as closely as may be to the way in which the rest of the United Kingdom is governed?
    Mr. King: I hope and know that my hon. Friend will have listened to my original answer, and I trust that he found it entirely acceptable as the policy that we seek to pursue. That is the foundation on which we strive to address the governance of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the principles of governing Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom should be to adopt exactly the same electoral process in the Province as that which is enjoyed by the electorate in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the methods used for identification at polling stations are inadequate, as was proved to be true yesterday, when people apparently turned up with forged medical cards? Would not the solution be a single proper identity card for the entire population?
    Mr. King: There are strong arguments in favour of the hon. Gentleman's latter suggestion, provided that one can ensure that it operates in a way that is not itself open to abuse. One of the problems of personation in Northern Ireland is the determined efforts made by people to falsify their identity, even when required to produce proof of it. The authorities take as effective steps as they can against forgery and other activities.
    I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's first point. I cannot believe that anyone seriously argues that it is desirable to return to the old electoral system in Northern Ireland.

    Short Brothers
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on privatisation of Short Brothers and the implications for defence sales.
    Mr. Viggers: Proposals for the acquisition of Short Brothers plc have now been received from Bombardier and GEC-Fokker and they are being carefully assessed. There will be no change in the relationship between the Ministry of Defence as customer and Shorts as contractor consequent upon the sale of the Government's shareholding.
    Mr. Colvin: Although Short Brothers is still over-manned, will my hon. Friend congratulate the company on its recent improvement in productivity? Bearing in mind the importance of the Paris air show next month as a shop window for the aerospace industry, can my hon. Friend assure the House that Short Brothers will be able to exhibit at that show knowing who are its new owners?
    Mr. Viggers: The Government are seeking urgently to finalise the arrangements for the move of Shorts o 'the private sector as a single unit, which is our preferred

    465
    option, but it is not possible at this point to put a specific timetable on that programme. I agree completely with my hon. Friend that the long-term future of Shorts will lie with those who work there. High productivity and competitiveness will be crucial.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me twice. May I impress upon the Minister the need to make an urgent decision on the privatisation of Shorts? The Minister will be aware that only some two weeks ago the company—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Cryer: I did not know that they made umbrella material into jackets.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was in the umbrella business.
    The Minister will be aware that a couple of weeks ago Shorts made a decision to make 700 people redundant. It seems to the outsider that a decision has already been taken within the company that it would prefer privatisation with Bombardier. Bombardier said some weeks ago that if no decision was announced publicly within two weeks it would assume that a decision had been made. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that a statement will be made within the next two weeks so that we can have a full discussion on the privatisation of Shorts, and Shorts can go to the air show in Paris knowing who its new owners will be?
    Mr. Viggers: What I can say is that no decision has been made. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are pursuing the matter with all possible urgency.
    Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the recent meeting with Bombardier's in Canada; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Viggers: The visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Bombardier Ltd. in Montreal on 2 May was at the invitation of its chairman and took place during his recent programme of commitments in north America. As to the discussions about the bids received for Shorts from Bombardier and GEC/Fokker, they are commercial and confidential.
    Mr. Ashdown: Following the Minister's previous answers, I must press him further. Does he realise that there is now—[Interruption.] I long ago learnt to ignore those hooligans masquerading as hon. Members on the Conservative side. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that there is now a very serious haemorrhaging of the kind of skilled labour on which Shorts depends as a result of the uncertainty now hanging over the company? Some are going to South Africa, some to the United States and some to Canada. It is true to say that Shorts has put forward its proposals for privatisation and Bombardier has accepted them. What is the delay and does the Minister realise that if the dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over Shorts is not cleared away by the time of the Paris air show the consequence will be a loss of orders and an even more substantial loss of skilled manpower?
    Mr. Viggers: All those companies which entered into the negotiations for the possible acquistion of Shorts did so on the basis that the discussions would be handled in a confidential manner, and they must be. I reiterate the assurance that I gave in answer to the previous question. We are closely in touch with the company in question and with the other companies which have indicated an interest in making the acquisition. We will pursue the matter with all possible urgency.

    Local Government
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to change local government structures and powers in Northern Ireland to bring them into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Tom King: No, Sir. We do, however, want to see elected representatives more fully involved in the arrangements for governing Northern Ireland. We have therefore been stressing the need for the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland to talk together, and with us, about such issues.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am flattered that he does read my speeches. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when he is considering the aspects of the structure and the merger he will bear in mind the fact that I represent a minority of a minority? I am a Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament and the Scots are a minority in the United Kingdom. Therefore we understand the position of minorities but we do not expect power sharing at local government level or any other level in Scotland because we recognise that the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is that the majority will prevails.
    Mr. King: In the discussions that we are seeking to initiate we make it clear that we do not wish to set out a prearranged formula on any particular basis. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the position in Northern Ireland is very different from that in Scotland in that there is very little power in local government, and I should like to see people in Northern Ireland taking more responsibility for their own administration and government.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the review of the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to be completed.
    Mr. King: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
    Mr. Flannery: When the review is completed, instead of just a statement followed by the customary 30 or 45 minutes of questions could we have a debate on the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Mr. King: I would certainly welcome that, and I take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is, however, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I shall ensure that he is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's request.

    International Fund for Ireland
    Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the work of the International Fund for Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The international fund is making good progress in fulfilling its objectives of promoting economic and social development in those areas of Ireland north and south which have suffered most in recent years, and of encouraging contact, dialogue and reconciliation. I pay tribute to the board of the fund for the way in which it has approached this important task.
    Mr. McCusker: What does it feel like, as a member of a Government who put such a premium on hard work, self-reliance and thrift, to be the recipient of Third world aid from the United States of America?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinary point if he is criticising the suggestion that the United States and other contributors to the international fund should make their own contribution to economic and social development in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that, as he represents constituents in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the contribution that the fund has made.
    Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend's point is that he believes that there are places in Great Britain that would benefit from the international fund. I think that I heard him suggest Brixton.
    Mr. Stewart: I did not hear that comment, but any suggestion that the fund's resources are not welcome for desirable purposes in Northern Ireland strikes me as extraordinary.

    Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: In the first four months of the year the security forces have fired 182 plastic baton rounds. The vast majority of these were fired in north and west Belfast during incidents of serious street disorder. In certain circumstances, particularly during vicious and widespread rioting when lives are put seriously at risk, the use of plastic baton rounds is the most effective way of restoring order.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that there are proposals for a different type of plastic baton round, which appears to be rather more lethal than the present type? Will he make it clear that he has no intention of changing the type now in use, and that real progress could be made if we were able to phase out the use of all plastic bullets?
    Mr. Stewart: The use of baton rounds is, I think, likely to remain necessary in Northern Ireland for as long as serious disorder of this kind occurs. Changes have been made in types of baton round in the past to ensure that they performed their task more effectively—that task being to restore order without causing serious damage or injury—and that may happen again in the future. Such bullets should always be used with care and restraint, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to the time when they are no longer needed.

    NHS (Hospital Operations)
    Mr. Kilfedder: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take to reduce the delay for National Health Service operations.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Department of Health and Social Services is currently addressing hospital in-patient waiting lists through the accountability reviews by ensuring that action to reduce waiting times for operations is accorded a high priority.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that many patients, relatives and general practitioners, particularly in my constituency of North Down, are extremely worried about the delay in some operations? Will he consider the matter again?
    Mr. Needham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under close observation. As he will know, the key indicator is waiting times rather than waiting lists. The waiting lists in Northern Ireland amount to 32 per cent. of in-patients, which is exactly the same percentage as before. Of course, we will continue to watch the position closely which is why in the accountability reviews with the boards we are making certain that all the statistics available are checked to see what we can do to reduce waiting lists as quickly as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McFall: No doubt the Prime Minister is aware that Guy's hospital is appealing to the public to sponsor cots financially so that the lives of tiny babies who have to undergo heart operations can be saved. Would the Prime Minister care to consider the advice of St. Francis of Assisi —if that great man were alive today to give that advice to grandmothers such as her? Does she think that he would advise that adequate funding is important so that each and every operation is given priority and babies' lives can be saved? Does she agree that that would be better than the begging bowl approach that is adopted now, or does she not care?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to cots for tiny children, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many more intensive care units now than there were 10 years ago, many more specialised nurses attending those cots and many more consultant specialists to see that the children get the attention and care that they need. They have far more now than children had 10 years ago, and further progress will continue.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the one-day strikes that are taking place, causing maximum hardship and disruption for the general

    469
    public and with minimum cost to the union members involved? Is it not time that we moved towards continental practices where in Germany and Italy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir Marcus Fox: This is very topical. In Germany and Italy strikes are illegal and in France they are unlawful in the public sector.
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in condemning the strikes. The strikers show no concern whatever for the public whom they are intended to serve.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to The Daily Telegraph this morning, support among doctors for her new National Health Service proposals has risen to a new high of 1 per cent? What are her plans to double that support?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had read other polls he would have noticed that at least 25 per cent. of doctors have shown interest—[Interruption.]—in taking their own practice budgets which is very different from the figure he gave. We have indications that many hospitals are showing interest in becoming self-governing hospitals in the Health Service. Under the White Paper the purpose is better service for patients and an opportunity for doctors to choose whether they have their own practice budgets and for hospitals to choose whether they will become self-governing. I am well aware that choice plays no part in Socialist policies.
    Mr. McLoughlin: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider why a number of local authorities are spending so much money trying to spread falsehoods about the community charge? Does she agree that the authorities which tend to do that usually turn out to be the high-spending authorities? Does she further agree that under the community charge, high-spending authorities will have high community charges and that that is why they are so concerned about the matter, because for the first time they will be accountable to the people who have to pay the money?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend's community charge leaflet was fully cleared by their Lordships for distribution and that, at the same time, Greenwich council was caught out in sending out false propaganda and insinuating that if one did not fill in the community charge form, somewhow one would be deprived of one's vote. That was totally wrong. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party does not want the community charge to come in because it will show up which are the high spending, extravagant authorities, which are mainly Labour.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Prime Minister note that I have received in recent weeks several hundred letters from constituents who are anxious about the NHS, showing that their concern is as much about the Government's apparently dogmatic attempts to destabilise the service as about the inadequacy of resources? Does the right hon.
    470
    Lady appreciate that many parts of these islands did not give much support to her party at the last general election —[Interruption.]—and that it is about time that the 24 million people who did not vote Conservative then, and who will not vote for her next time, had some consideration, and rather more than they have received in recent years?
    The Prime Minister: Whether or not they voted Conservative, they have done very much better under this Government than they ever did under Labour, not only in terms of the standard of living but in terms of the standard of health care under the NHS, with far more resources for the Health Service, far more doctors, far more nurses, far more treatment for far more patients and far better treatment than ever before.
    Mr. Aitken: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Aitken: Looking ahead from my right hon. Friend's splendidly robust recent statements on EEC matters towards the practical implementation of her words at the forthcoming Madrid summit, may I ask her to say whether she agrees that the most explosive flashpoints on the Madrid agenda are likely to be the Delors report on economic and monetary union and the social charter? Is it her view that the British Government have a legal right to exercise a veto on these misguided proposals, and will she be prepared to use it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has correctly identified what will be the two main issues at the Madrid summit—the Delors report and the social charter. From all the accounts that I have received about the social charter, it is more like a Socialist charter—[Interruption.] —of unnecessary controls and regulations which would tie up industry, which would put many more costs on industry, which would make industry uncompetitive and which would therefore increase unemployment and mean that we could not compete with the rest of the world for the trade that we so sorely need.
    As for the Delors report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made our position very clear indeed —that we could not follow that report. Both of those matters require unanimity. I do not believe that we shall be alone in opposing them but that we shall find many other Heads of Government opposed to all or parts of them, and will take a different course from that charted in both of those documents.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Prime Minister take time in the course of her busy day to visit Northern Ireland, where she could observe at first hand, either today or even tomorrow, the tedious and complicated procedure of count which must follow proportional representation elections, a system of election which makes it easy for parties such as Sinn Fein to be elected? Why does she deny to her own constituents in Finchley, who are at least as British as those in Northern Ireland, the opportunity to vote for and elect members of Sinn Fein, the National Front and so on?
    The Prime Minister: I am very satisfied with the election system that we have in Great Britain, and hope and believe that it will continue.
    Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend welcome recent developments in the Soviet Union, where candidates for the Soviet parliament are no longer imposed upon the electorate by the central party organisation in the Kremlin? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are very glad to note that the Soviet Union is well ahead of the Labour party, judging from what is happening at Vauxhall in this country.
    Ms. Armstrong: Can the Prime Minister explain why she has set her face so strongly against the Lingua programme, when her own Department was fiercely in support of it initially, and when reassurances are given in the programme that it will have no legislative effect on the curriculum or anything else? It will simply offer opportunities for our young people and teachers to be involved in exchange programmes to improve their modern language facilities.
    The Prime Minister: We support the teacher part, but not the whole programme as operated from Europe because £160 million—[Interruption.) Perhaps Opposition Members would listen before they pass judgment. We do not support the £160 million programme because we could do better for our own pupils and teachers with expenditure of less money. The Labour party used to believe in value for money, but that was long ago.
    Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend reinforce her notable victory in Brussels yesterday and ensure that zero-rated VAT for children's clothes, food and books will remain in this country by continuing her robust and successful efforts to prevent unhelpful attempts by the Commission to interfere in our taxation matters?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The continuation of zero rating is a major vindication of the United Kingdom's firm stance on this matter—a stance to which we have always adhered—[Interruption.] We have always adhered to it very firmly indeed. I also welcome the fact that the Commission's latest ideas appear to involve the continuation of those rates. We need to study the small print of the Commission's communication very carefully because we believe that there are some conditional factors, and that they propose some requirements for tax approximation, which we do not believe are at all necessary or, indeed, advisable.
    Mr. Leighton: Did the Prime Minister say on Tuesday that the United Kingdom is paying £2 billion net to the Common Market for which we get no tangible return? Why on earth should we do that?
    The Prime Minister: Because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is the net contribution that falls to us this year
    472
    for being in Europe, receiving all the inward investment that we obtain as members of the EC, being able to negotiate on trade as part of the European Community, and gaining all the other benefits which flow from that. Had it not been for the negotiation which took place at Fontainebleau, when we gained a good deal of rebate, we would not pay a £2 billion net contribution, but about £3·5 billion.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Nicholson: In her busy day, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see that the Greenwich borough council has had to withdraw 85,000 copies of the Greenwich Times because it contained a misleading and factually incorrect statement—[Interruption.] The paper incorrectly stated that those who did not put their names down for the community charge would lose their democratic right to vote. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical and abominable for a council that has constantly bombarded the Government with charges of promoting inaccurate material to the public to then be guilty of doing so itself?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen that Greenwich council has withdrawn its false statement that failure to pay the charge may deprive people of their right to vote. This will be interesting, because Greenwich council ratepayers will have to pay the costs of Greenwich, which fought the Government over an accurate leaflet that we wished to distribute.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: When considering the most recent pronouncements by the doctors, is it not relevant to recall that they have opposed every reform to the Health Service that has been mooted in the past 40 years? Does my right hon. Friend recall that in. June 1955, when the Government wished to stop the spread of drug addiction and sought to ban the use and manufacture of heroin in Britain, the British Medical Association behaved in exactly the same way as it is behaving today—worrying patients and sending furious letters to Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, it is true that the BMA has tended to oppose many of the major reforms of the Health Service; many of us remember the limited list, for instance.
    I remember that there were some clinical reasons for the particular case that my hon. Friend mentioned, but that matter was successfully resolved. I must point out that, although the BMA has opposed reforms, usually it has eventually operated them and they have tended to become part of the unchangeable traditions of the National Health Service. We look forward to receiving the same sort of co-operation once the reforms are in practice, when we are sure that the BMA will welcome them and say that it does not know how it could ever have done without them.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Remaining stages of the National Maritime Museum Bill [Lords], the Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [Lords] and the Atomic Energy Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 23 MAY—Opposition day (11th allotted day).
Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The necessary regeneration of the inner cities".
Motions relating to community charges and rating and valuation regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 24 MAY—Remaining stages of the Dock Work Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document on gaseous emissions. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 25 MAY—Remaining stages of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 26 MAY—Adjournment motions.
[Debate on Tuesday 23 May: Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 438); Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations (SI 1989 No. 440); Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 439); Valuation for Rating ( Plant and Machinery) Regulations (SI 1989 No. 441); Personal Community Charge ( Exemptions) Order 1989 ( SI 1989 No. 442); Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 ( SI 1989 No. 443).
Wednesday 24 May: Relevant European Community Document, Un-numbered: Small cars: gaseous emissions. Relevant report of European Legislation Committee: HC 15-xxii (1988–89) para 2.]
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
I must protest at the Government's intention to rush and push a number of regulations on the poll tax in the ludicrously short time of an hour and a half on Tuesday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could pass on to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment a reminder that he has ended up in court in the past as a result of rushing through a considerable number of regulations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Costs!"] If that gumboil, the Minister for Local Government, want to intervene, I remind him that he had no statutory authority to issue the leaflet that he is talking about.
Following the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, when can we expect to debate that report in the House and to get on with endorsing it and putting the experiment into operation?
474
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we are likely to have the long-promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute student loans for student grants?
When, too, are we likely to have the long-promised debate on care in the community and the publication of the Government's response to the Griffiths report, which was published more than 14 months ago?
In view of the remarkable events around the world, from the middle east to China, when are we likely to have either a general debate on foreign affairs or one targeted on a specific part of the globe?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has asked me five questions about the business of next week.
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants a longer debate on the community charge regulations. I thought that the Opposition might have had enough of that subject for the moment. However, I am happy to have discussions through the usual channels to see whether it is possible to reach some arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on televising the House, which was published yesterday. I am hoping to arrange a debate very soon after Whitsun so that the House can decide whether it wishes to go ahead with the experiment. The report was from a large Select Committee of the House, representing points of view from all parties, and apart from one member it was unanimous in its recommendations, especially those dealing with the rules of coverage.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the best time for a debate on top-up loans for students will be once the discussions between ny right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the financial institutions are concluded. Those discussions are making good progress and I shall, of course, keep the hon. Gentleman's request well in mind.
I recognise that there is much interest in the Griffiths and Wagner reports. We are working on our proposals, which we shall bring forward in the near future. There will be no undue delay, but it is essential that we reach the right answers in that important area. The time for any further debate is when we have announced our proposals.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of a foreign affairs debate is important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) recently raised that matter with me. I am aware, therefore, of the general interest in all parts of the House. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at this time in the Session, demands on time on the Floor of the House are heavy, but I shall look for a suitable opportunity when time permits.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but today we have a statement following business questions, a privilege motion and then a debate in which there is enormous interest from hon. Members wishing to participate. I shall, therefore, have to limit business questions and stop at four o'clock. Many hon. Members will be called provided that they ask brief questions.
Sir Bernard Braine: Although for many years there has been a majority in the House in favour of abortion law reform, it has always been frustrated by a

475
minority. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about giving time for the House to discuss that position, which is not understood and, indeed, is resented by the public?
Will he give time for a discussion on the proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure? Is it not high time that that matter was resolved?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my right hon. Friend is deeply concerned about the matter and that he has consistently sought to exert pressure in that respect. My hon. Friend knows well that there are two considerations. He has, among others, made suggestions about what the Government might do about it, and we have said that we would look at those suggestions. We recognise that it would be a substantial change from previous practice, but we said that we would consider it.
On the question of the proposals for private Members' time and the changes recommended by the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, I am studying that report and I hope to find an opportunity for the House to deal with the matter in the not too distant future.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's explanation about pressures on time, but could he please try to find time to debate health warnings on tobacco products, irrespective of decisions made in Europe? Does he agree that it is extremely serious that, in the past two years, cigarette smoking, particularly among women, has increased, bearing in mind the attendant consequence of lung cancer? Therefore, I beg the Leader of the House to find time time to debate this serious issue.
Mr. Wakeham: We had a debate not long ago on some aspects of this subject, but I recognise its importance. I cannot promise a debate on it in the near future, but I recognise its importance and I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Sir Hugh Rossi: In considering the litany of subjects put forward by the Opposition for which Opposition days are available, will my right hon. Friend consider giving time to reports of Select Committees and, in particular, the report of the Environment Select Committee on ancient monuments and historic buildings, which has suddenly assumed topical importance? Will he also consider a debate on the report on toxic waste, which has been reinforced by a report in the other place and about which there is a great deal of public concern at the moment?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind me that there are a number of Select Committee reports. He has mentioned the report of one such Committee, of which he was the distinguished Chairman. He asks me to consider those for debate and I wish that I could be more hopeful about finding time for such a debate in the near future. My hon. Friend has, however, raised an important subject, and I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: In view of the widespread concern about the arts and the heritage, as evidenced by the current public concern about the Rose theatre site and the Roman baths in the City of London, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to an early debate or an annual arts debate so that we can discuss such matters and ensure that such sites are preserved for future generations?
Mr. Wakeham: It is certainly right that from time to time we should have debates on the arts and related subjects. At the moment, I do not see time for such a debate but I will bear the request in mind.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the end of June when the Lord Chancellor makes up his mind on the Green Papers? There have now been two debates in the other place. Surely it would seem slightly strange if the Lord Chancellor gave his reasons without this House ever having said a word on the subject.
Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman would like a debate on that subject and I wish that I could find time for it. We had a partial debate on the subject late at night, which was not satisfactory. The consultation period closed on 2 May and there have been about 2,000 responses. The Lord Chancellor is, of course, awaiting the response of the senior judiciary, for whom a limited extension to 30 May was granted for exceptional reasons. I wish that I could find time for a debate, but I do riot believe that I shall be able to do so in the immediate future.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Leader of the House will be aware of the savage cuts that are currently planned in agricultural research. In particular, he may be aware of the concern in my area regarding the future of Rosewarne. I have heard news today that Ministers are still refusing to accept any reasonable package to save that centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider trying to find time for the House to debate that important issue before the final decisions are taken?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman's question shows a slightly unbalanced assessment of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is seeking to achieve in the changes to the way in which support for research is funded from public funds. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity next Thursday to question my right hon. Friend on this subject. I recognise that a debate would be more satisfactory, but the hon. Gentleman might try his luck in getting an Adjournment debate as it seems a suitable subject for one.
Mr. William Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after making inquiries of the Library, I find that the social charter document that was issued in press release form yesterday will not be available to hon. Members or even to the Government for seven days because it has not yet been translated and facilities are not available to translate it? Does my right hon. Friend regard that as a disgraceful way of carrying on? When the document is available, could we not find some way to debate the matter as soon as possible and to dispose of it in that way?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I recognise the concern that he expresses and I shall look into the matter. I recognise also that many hon. Members would like to take part in a debate on that subject. 1 cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, but it seems to me that my hon. Friend, with his ingenuity, may manage to introduce the subject into today's debate if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House obviously knows about the report on televising Parliament. There has been a lot of scathing press criticism about the fact that it will be severely restricted. Apparently, only the head and shoulders of hon. Members will be shown on the television screen. Will there be exceptions, in certain circumstances? For instance, could we have a "three" shot of the SDP? If the Leader of the SDP crosses the Floor of the House, will the cameras be allowed to follow him? And what about the member of the mujaheddin, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? Will he be shown when the Prime Minister is answering Questions on the Common Market?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman should read the report over the weekend study it in detail and decide his tactics accordingly. Perhaps I may give him some rough guidance. If he stays in order, he will be on television. If he is out of order, he will probably not be on television.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) a short while ago, but may I point out that those courses of action were outlined to us in February and no noticeable progress seems to have been made. When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to respond to us one way or the other?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that my hon. Friend needs to be fair. If the Government decide to do something in their legislative programme, there is a proper time for announcing it. That time is not now—and it is not next week, either. The matter will be announced at the proper time. As for the private Member's Bill procedure and the report from the Select Committee on Procedure, my hon. Friend knows that the original report that it submitted, which we did not debate in the House, went back to the Select Committee. The Committee had a second look at it and came up with suggestions which I believe are better than the original ones. I hope to bring them before the House before too long. However, I do not believe that it would be right to change the rules in the middle of the Session. Even if the House were to approve the rules, I should have thought that the rule changes would most conveniently be brought into operation at the beginning of the next Session.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 847 on the illegal ivory trade and the African elephant?
[That this House welcomes the report of the Environmental Investigation Agency into the plight of the African elephant; deplores the illegal killing of 70,000 elephants per year to boost the ivory trade, 80 per cent. of which is illegal; welcomes the decision of the Government of Tanzania to apply to have the African elephant registered as an endangered species under the 1973 Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; calls on Her Majesty's Government to support this application and resolutely to prevent illegal ivory trade through Hong Kong.]
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is obscene that these wonderful creatures should be slaughtered in such numbers to provide jewellery, ivory carvings and piano keys? Will he ask his Cabinet colleagues to ban the
478
import of all worked and raw ivory? If he will not do that, may we please have an early debate on the trade in endangered species and on animal conservation generally? I have asked the Leader of the House for such a debate.
Mr. Wakeham: And I recognise the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and concern about these issues. One of his hon. Friends asked me a question about this last week and I arranged for a Foreign Office Minister to write to him. A long letter was sent setting out a number of the issues and objectives that the Government are seeking to achieve. The best thing that I can do is to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a copy of that letter, which I shall do. The Government fully understand and share the concern about the plight of the African elephant. We shall consider carefully any proposal to ban trade in African ivory in the light of the scientific evidence available and in consultation with our European partners. Hong Kong is also a party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and prohibits the import of ivory in all its forms, except from an approved source and subject to the issue of a licence by the Hong Kong Government. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: So as to avoid continually getting out of step with the European Community, should we not have machinery whereby we co-operate with Members of the European Parliament in the British interest? When will my right hon. Friend forward proposals to that effect?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that proposals of that kind are for the House rather than for me. I recognise that there is some dissatisfaction, which I share, about the way in which European matters are dealt with in the House, Through discussion with the Scrutiny Committee and the Procedure Committee, to which I gave evidence yesterday, I am actively seeking to find ways to improve the situation. I should welcome co-operation with Members of the European Parliament in any way that is acceptable to the House, but I am not sure whether a formal arrangement would be the best way forward.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the electoral registration figures for 1989 are at last available in the Library by constituency, and show an alarming decline in certain constituencies, can we have a debate about the state of the electoral register and the impact of the poll tax upon it to test the legality of the poll tax legislation and whether it is in conflict with the 1275 Statute of Westminster and the Representation of the People Act 1983?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has some responsibilities in this matter, If he continues to refer to the community charge as a poll tax, it is not surprising that some people will be misled, I should have thought that some of his friends in Greenwich might also have something to answer for.
Mr. David Wilshire: Given the choice of subject for the first debate in this week's supply day, can my right hon. Friend throw any light on the reason why next Tuesday the House will not have the opportunity to discuss the costs to Greenwich ratepayers of lying on the rates and squandering money on party political propaganda?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not seen the motion that the Opposition intend to table, or the amendment that the Government might table to that motion. Whether my hon. Friend's point would be in order is not a matter for me. It is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend had better wait and see what the motion says.
Mr. Max Madden: The Leader of the House will remember that I have asked on a number of occasions for a debate in Government time on the issues arising from the publication of "The Satanic Verses". As Moslems from all over Britain and from overseas will be meeting in London a week on Saturday to protest about the book, and as I doubt whether the Government will arrange a debate for next week, does not the Leader of the House think it timely for the Prime Minister to urge Mr. Salman Rushdie to instruct his publishers worldwide to stop further or new printing of the book so that the offence which has been caused and recognised throughout the House will cease?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether that arises on the business for next week, and I very much doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's solution is right. Some of the disgraceful statements which have come out of Iran have caused a great deal of concern throughout the world and should be condemned by all civilised people.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend, like me, amazed at the apathy and ignorance of most Members of Parliament about the work of the Council of Europe? I repeat again that we have a social charter, also in document. The transfrontier television satellite broadcasting formula has just been accepted by 12 nations. Today in London a debate on drugs has been promoted by the Council of Europe. The House seems totally unaware that there is a world outside this place. Is it not time for a debate on the work of the other institutions in Europe apart from the European Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: Whatever the level of ignorance in these matters, I can tell my hon. Friend that his timely and occasional reminders to the House of the importance of the western European treaties and arrangements are helpful. Ignorance is being lessened day by day. I wish that I could promise an early debate, but I am afraid that I cannot.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House give us a little rough guidance about his thoughts on television? What did he mean by referring to whether the House
"wishes to go ahead with the experiment"?
Does he think that there is an option not to go ahead because he has so sanitised the proposals? Should we not go ahead—warts, Bexley, Bolsover and all?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps have a discussion with his hon. Friends about that. The House passed a motion authorising the setting up of a Select Committee to draw up plans for an experiment. The report will come before the House for debate and the House will decide whether it wants to go ahead with the experiment that we recommend. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report from cover to cover—I know that he takes these matters very seriously—he will see that with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet,
480
North (Mr. Gale), who had some very interesting views which did not find much support in Committee, the Committee was unanimous in believing that the rules of coverage should be fairly tight, at least to start with. We believe that the rules are not very dissimilar from the unwritten rules in the House of Lords, but think that it was right to set out rules of coverage. It is an experiment. If the House goes ahead with it, we shall see whether we have got it right or whether there should be any changes.
Mr. John Carlisle: As the debates on association football have rightly been postponed, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on rugby union football? That would give the Government an opportunity to explain to the House why, when the England XV last Saturday went to Romania—a country whose regime is vilified in all parts of the House—there were no protests. Yet when a few individuals might receive invitations to go to South Africa three junior Ministers sent off blackmail threats and letters to the respective rugby unions about the dire consequences which could occur. Are we a free country or are we not?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know that I go along with my hon. Friend. At the moment I am concerning myself mostly with Association football and with the Bill which is in another place. I hope that that Bill will make progress in the not too distant future and will come to this House. That is enough for me to be going on with.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 850 about opting-out proposals for four Bradford hospitals, including two important hospitals, Bradford Royal infirmary and St. Luke's?
[That this House condemns the proposal for the opting-out of Bradford Royal Infirmary, St. Luke's, Lynfield Mount and Woodlands hospitals drawn up una'er the sponsorship of unelected bureaucrats Mark Baker and Eduard Kane; believes that these hospitals provide highly important services and that these two bureaucrats, in proposing and endorsing these proposals, are betraying the trust placed in senior administrators by consultants, general practitioners, patients and people who work in the interest of the National Health Service; further believes they are behaving like puppets of the Tory Government; notes that no ballot has been held amongst either consultants, doctors, patients or National Health Service staff of any category nor amongst the taxpayers who finance the National Health Service; and roundly condemns the anti-democratic and harmful nature of these proposals.]
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that no ballot was held among doctors, consultants, patients, nurses, porters or anyone else working in the National Health Service? The opting-out proposals were masterminded by two self-seeking, unelected bureaucrats. May we have a debate on that sort of thing, because if a ballot had been held on this issue there would have been a mighty defeat for any proposal worked out among any section of the National Health Service for any group of patients?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is not usually a man who gets rattled, but he seems to be rattled about the support for the Government's proposals for self-governing hospitals. Such hospitals will give patients more choice and produce a better quality service. Staff and local

481
communities will have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any formal applications are made. In the meantime, the Government greatly welcome the indication of support from all over the country.
Mr. David Sumberg: Many of us are receiving letters from constituents in support of the RSPCA scheme for a dog registration system. Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on this matter, if not next week, then as soon as possible, so that we can have a full discussion on a subject that is of interest to people outside?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the concern and I have written a number of letters on the subject, but I do not see an early opportunity for a debate in the House. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Haynes: My business question is urgent and it relates to every hon. Member. I want to know when we are to have the debate on Members' pensions, because for one thing the widows are getting a raw deal. A report in the press says that the Government are seriously considering cutting their contribution by 50 per cent. That ain't on—we shall make sure of that. And we want a debate during the day, not one hidden away in the early hours of the morning.
Mr. Wakeham: It is nice to see a young man thinking about his pension. This is an important subject and the hon. Gentleman asked me about a debate. Over the next week or so, I propose to meet the trustees of the pension fund to discuss various matters of concern and then decide how best to have a debate. We shall arrange a debate as soon as we can after that.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental principle of a nuclear deterrent is to deter, which is based on the courage and determination of a future Prime Minister to use the nuclear weapon if necessary and the courage and determination to say so in advance? Can we have a debate on nuclear issues so that the confusion in the country about the Opposition's policy can be shown?
Mr. Wakeham: I have already said that I hope to be able to arrange for a debate on the Army in the not too distant future. I think that that will give my hon. Friend the opportunity to make his points.
Several Hon. Members rose—

Adjournment Debates
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday, 26 May up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Roads (White Paper)
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Statement. Mr. Channon.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not take points of order until after statements, but is it in connection with papers not available for this statement?
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to press a point of order at this stage. May I explain? The letter board is swamped with letters from the Department of Transport to every hon. Member from England, which I assume contain previews of the statement about to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport. We have all asked in the past for advance information, and that might be what the letters contain.
My point of order is this. Written question 221 to the Secretary of State for Scotland is a planted question which is clearly intended to be a parallel statement to that being made today. No provisions are being made to inform Scottish Members of what is happening. In the interests of fairness, the Department of Transport should not abuse its position in this way. At the same time, the Secretary of State should not denigrate Scottish Members. If no statement about Scotland is to be made in this House, we should be treated properly and in the same way.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of letters on the letter board, but all hon. Members should be treated equally in the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I am going to call the Minister to proceed.
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the Government's plans to improve the motorway and trunk road network.
The sustained and unprecedented economic growth of recent years has stimulated the demand for transport to levels which are well above all forecasts.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: This is gagging the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman cannot contain himself, I shall, with the greatest reluctance, ask him to leave.
Mr. Faulds: This is gagging the House. I will withdraw.
Mr. Channon: We must maintain the economy's progress. We must also get business moving so that we are ready to seize the major opportunities presented by 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.
The Government are determined to see the railways play their part. British Rail, assisted by record levels of investment, is carrying many more passengers. Rail freight can expect to benefit substantially from the Channel tunnel.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A large number of Conservative Members have documents relating to this debate—[Interruption.] Furthermore, it is said in a letter given to hon. Members of this House that copies of the White Paper would be available. When 1 went to the Vote Office, it was not available. Why have Conservative Members had details which were not given to Labour Members?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that all hon. Members with English constituencies have received, or are in the process of receiving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] That is my information.
Mr. Channon: I have tried to help hon. Members with English constituencies by making the information available. If that has gone wrong, I apologise, but I think that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House with English constituencies have received the information.
Mr. Cohen: It is an absolute disgrace.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 38 hon. Members seeking to take part in a subsequent debate. Points of order on this matter, for which I have no responsibility, will simply delay us. Mrs. Dunwoody.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Under normal circumstances I would never dream of doing anything to hold up the business of the House, but in this case there appears to be a difference between English Members who are Conservative and those who are not.
Mr. Channon: I can assure the hon. Lady that that is not the case and, if she checks, I am sure that she will find that she has the information.
Rail freight can expect to benefit substantially from the Channel tunnel. We shall continue to provide grants for rail freight facilities where they help to keep lorries off unsuitable routes. But rail's share of traffic is less than a tenth of that on the roads. For many inter-urban road movements, rail services do not offer a realistic alternative. So while rail is important, it can meet only a small part of the increased demand for transport outside the major city centres.
In framing future roads policy, I have borne in mind the effect that roads can have on the sensitive landscape of this country. We will be taking all reasonable steps to minimise any adverse impact of road schemes on their surroundings. The House will also appreciate that taking traffic away from unsuitable roads will help the environment and improve the quality of life of many individuals and communities.
New roads are safer roads; and I expect that improvements to the road network will make a major contribution to my target of reducing road casualties by one third by the end of the century.
I am publishing today, in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", our plans for roads.
The inter-urban motorway and trunk road network, with which the White Paper deals, provides the core of the country's road system. It carries some 30 per cent. of all traffic and 40 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles. We have reviewed traffic trends and produced new forecasts. Those
484
are set out in the White Paper. They project substantially faster growth than previously estimated. In the light of the new forecasts, the Government have concluded both that our main efforts to provide additional transport capacity in support of growth and prosperity must be directed towards widening existing roads and building new ones, and that a step change in the programme is essential.
Accordingly, I can inform the House that the road programme will be more than doubled, from over £5 billion to over £12 billion. That includes substantial improvement of most existing motorways and many major trunk roads. Some new motorways are proposed. All the schemes are listed in the White Paper.
The expansion of the programme concentrates on the need to keep Britain's goods moving. Improving major routes for through traffic will bring widespread benefits to the regions and the inner cities by providing better links throughout the country.
Rapid progress is essential. An additional £27 million is being made available from the reserve this year for immediate work by consultants on preparing the new programme. Motorway widening will be a key element of our plans, and will provide the scope for early relief of congestion. I have already taken steps to speed up our internal road planning procedures. But I can reassure individuals and others affected by specific schemes that their rights will continue to be protected.
The Government are determined to provide a modern transport infrastructure for a modern Britain, and this White Paper will make a major contribution.
Mr. John Prescott: We welcome the Government's acceptance of the fact that the economic and social cost to the nation of chronic congestion is such that urgent action in the form of a doubling of present road expenditure is needed. Is it not a damning indictment of 10 years of the present Government's complacency and inactivity that such radical action is now needed? Does it not show that 10 years of Tory transport policy has been a failure?—[Interruption.] I am used to the yobs on the Conservative Benches, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to calm down.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that the unprecedented growth in the economy and in car ownership to which he refers is not unique to Britain under Mrs. Thatcher, but is a long-term trend in society that has been witnessed in virtually every other European country in the last 25 years? Those countries planned for it with road improvements and by making greater investment in public transport.
Britain is unique in the Government's failure to help relieve road congestion by promoting rail travel and other forms of public transport on the scale of other European countries. Is it not the case that deregulation, privatisation and the cutting of financial support in the public sector undermines public transport and forces more people on to the roads? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the background to the White Paper is inadequate spending on road maintenance, so that every class of road in Britain is now in a worse state of repair than 10 years ago? Even on the basis of the programmes outlined in the 1985 and 1987 White Papers, the Government have failed

485
to meet their own targets, and instead of the backlog of motorway maintenance work reducing this year, it has increased.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on average, the Government spend less in real terms each year on our national road network than Labour did when in office, despite a 40 per cent. increase in road traffic? The record shows that Government expenditure on roads is nowhere near as high as the Secretary of State would have us believe —[Interruption.] The Secretary of State keeps mumbling, as he does during Question Time. I assure him that I obtained from the Library comparative figures showing the real expenditure levels, and I can show them to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants—instead of him telling the House how good is the Government's record.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that, in the last 10 years, Government revenue from all forms of taxation has more than doubled to £15 billion, so Britain's transport system is more heavily taxed than that of any other European country—and less of that taxation is spent on transport than in any other European Country?
In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that the imposition of tolls is unacceptable and provides no solution to the problems that exist but is merely a further tax on the travelling public of this country? Does he accept that the White Paper fails to fit into the wider transport context? Is there not a danger that the Government, in responding to public concern about the growing transport crisis, have come up with panic measures—[Laughter.] Any plan that proposes, as the White Paper does, doubling of expenditure that cannot possibly be undertaken until after the next general elction is only a paper plan and offers no solution to current problems. The only definite expenditure is the £25 million that will be paid to the planners to provide yet more plans ready for the next general election. That is what the White Paper is really about.
Does the Secretary of State accept that 10-lane super-highways speeding traffic into the cities are useless if chronic congestion means that it cannot move in the cities when it arrives there? What effect will the White Paper's plans have on the environment, especially in respect of vehicle emissions? Road traffic alone accounts for more than one third of all harmful atmospheric emissions and is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. There is no mention of that in the White Paper, despite the Prime Minister's alleged concern about the greenhouse effect.
We agree that extending Britain's inadequate road network is part of the solution, but does the Secretary of State not accept that we cannot go on for ever building new roads and adding extra lanes to motorways in a vain attempt to keep pace with demand? Does he not accept that in some places building new roads simply generates greater congestion? The White Paper estimates that road traffic will increase by between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. in the next 30 years. Does he not accept that it would not be possible, even if it were desirable, to keep expanding the network to meet such demands?
This White Paper has all the reflections of Tory policy. It has a good title, it is a glossy brochure, it promises jam tomorrow for the super-jams of today, and it commits no
486
expenditure between now and 1992 to deal with the programme. It is a sham and will do nothing to relieve the congestion problem.
An Hon. Member: Answer that.
Mr. Channon: I shall try to answer, rather more briefly than the hon. Gentleman put his questions; and I shall answer all the questions.
At one moment, according to the hon. Gentleman, this was a panic measure, at another it was a paper plan and at yet another it was part of the solution. It was rather difficult to discover whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of it. I rather regret including in the plan, as a gesture to him, two proposals in Hull. If he thinks that it is a paper plan, we can quite easily withdraw them, it that is what he wants.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying for a long time about the unprecedented growth in the British economy, which leads us to need more transport infrastructure. I am also grateful to him for pointing out that this will be needed for some years ahead since clearly he is expecting, as we are, the continuation in office of a Conservative Government.
To hear the hon. Member talk, one might imagine that we were not investing anything in railways or public transport. I have taken the precaution, since he says he has as well, of looking at exactly what was spent in real terms by the Labour Government on both public transport and the roads. The House might be interested to learn that, at 1987–88 prices, investment by British Rail in the railways in 1978–79 was £425 million. The figure is now £654 million —50 per cent. up—and increasing. Capital expenditure on national roads in England was £668 million and it is now £1,052 million—again, a 50 per cent. increase. So much for the nonsense of what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Prescott: I will write with the figures.
Mr. Channon: I shall look forward to the hon. Member's letter with my usual anticipation.
The hon. Member is right to point to some of the defects in our system. He talks about maintenance, among other things, but fails to point out that, in their last four years in office, the Labour Government cut the road programme by 40 per cent. That is the measure of the sincerity of the Labour party and shows why we are the only people likely to put forward a programme to improve Britain's infrastructure.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on persuading the Treasury to give priority to the roads programme on such a massive scale? Will he accept that it must be right, as he suggests, to expand capacity on motorways by widening existing routes rather than building new routes? None the less, it is important to improve the environment by moving traffic away from towns and having more bypasses. In that context I wish to make an explicit request, which is that the map of the road through Worthing should in no way prejudge the issue of having a bypass rather than going through Worthing, which is the impression that the map creates.
Mr. Channon: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the last thing I wish to do is to mar the happiness of the day

487
and offend him by announcing a bypass through his constituency, the route of which he does not like. That I certainly am not planning to do today.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is quite right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is a great help to widen the motorways, because it can be done more quickly, and it is environmentally better, since we do not have to build so many new roads, which is what causes so much heartache and difficulty.
I hope my right hon. Friend will be pleased to see that there is to be some improvement of the A27 and that he will welcome that. I agree that we have to improve all the trunk roads as well as motorways, and to do so in a way that is environmentally sensitive. I will bear very much in mind what he says.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Clearly I shall not be able to call all the hon. Members who wish to be called, because of the pressure on the next debate. I will allow questions on this matter—of which I imagine we shall hear more in the future—to run until 4·45; then we really shall have to move on.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Secretary of State seen the Public Accounts Committee report on road planning, which is published today and which shows the inadequacy of some road planning methods? Do the right hon. Gentleman's current proposals take that into account?
Routes to the north-west will become even more important following the introduction of the Channel tunnel. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my reading of the report, large parts of the M6 are not due to be widened? Can he tell us when the whole of the M6 will be updated to meet the demands of the increased traffic that will be essential if the Channel tunnel is to bring advantages to the north-west?
Mr. Channon: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have seen the preliminary account of the views of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that he will agree, however, that it would be improper for me to reply today to the serious points on which the Committee has rightly focused, as they require careful study. I think that, by chance rather than by design, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that some attempt has been made to deal with at least some of the difficulties that have arisen in the past within a few hours of his Committee's drawing attention to them.
The right hon. Gentleman made particular mention of the M6. Let me point out to him that expenditure of some £700 million, no less, is proposed for the M6, with widening of the stretches between the M1 and junction 4 of the M42 and between junctions 11 and 20, with some other smaller improvements. If he has any other specific point in mind I should be delighted to take it up, but I must point out that the M6 is to receive a massive improvement. I think that that will be welcomed by many hon. Members.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Although there will be a warm welcome throughout the country for the marvellous news that my right hon. Friend has brought us this afternoon, there will be utter consternation in the north-east tonight when it is noticed that the map in the White Paper does not include a blue road from the
488
national motorway box to the north-east. That means that the north-east is now the only region—the only set of conurbations—in the country that is cut off from a national motorway system. The statement that consideration will be given to future motorway status will, I think, be welcome, but will my right hon. Friend give us an undertaking now that that consideration will be positive?
Mr. Channon: I cannot announce that it will be positive before we have studied the matter. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, of the considerable improvements 'to the A1 between London and the Scottish border, including stretches of the A1(M), on which more than £400 million is to be spent. He will also be aware of the study that has been announced in the White Paper, which shows that we shall consider the points that he has in mind. This will be a major route corridor study dealing with the stretch from Stamford to the central A1 south of Doncaster and the portion south of Darlington—and so it goes on. We shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. I certainly do not rule out roads of motorway or near-motorway standard, and we shall investigate the possibility of full motorway status from London to Tyneside.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of increased expenditure on infrastructure. Does he not agree, however, that more attention should be given to investment in the railways, and that cost-benefit analysis criteria should be used instead of the present one-off capital return on investment?
Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the proposals in his White Paper to widen the M25 to an eight-lane motorway, an investigation should be mounted to see whether a high-speed rail link could be run on the western side of the M25 to link Heathrow and Gatwick airports to the Channel tunnel, as well as the rest of the country?
Mr. Channon: I have had a little difficulty with high-speed rail links in other parts of the south-east recently, so I am not overwhelmingly enthusiastic to leap into that straight away without a moment's thought. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that British Rail is investing about £4 billion over the next five years. One can argue whether that should be more or less, but it is a substantial sum. There is massive reconstruction and investment in British Rail at present. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's criterion for how the two things should be compared would work out in favour of railways. The results of the two investment criteria are much the same, although the criteria are different.
Mr. Robert Adley: Oh.
Mr. Channon: I know that my hon. Friend does not entirely agree with that point. I am working on him, and I hope to convince him in the end.
Mr. David Howell: As my right hon. Friend points out in his statement, the growth of road traffic has been larger than originally expected, or officially projected. He is to be warmly congratulated on responding in a vigorous, imaginative and sensitive way to this colossal problem. This is thinking on the scale that we need. Will he concede—I am sure he will—that traffic growth on the railways is also far greater than the projections, and that even his idea of one tenth of traffic being on the railways

489
may be invalidated by events? Does he agree that we should be thinking not only of the magnificent step change in road investment but also of a step change in railway investment, if necessary reinforced by capital from the private sector, if we are to join the gigantic, integrated, high-speed rail network and the high-speed freight movement throughout Europe that will dominate the 1990s and the beginning of the next millenium?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly because of his experience in dealing with transport problems. I hope that he will find that some of the schemes proposed this afternoon will benefit his constituents in Guildford. I agree about the importance of rail infrastructure and rail investment. I have given the House the figures that we have in mind. All sorts of other possibilities open up. One thing that is fundamentally important to all parts of the House is that we should be satisfied—certainly we have to be satisfied within the course of this year—with what British Rail proposes to do to meet the needs of constituencies north of London when the tunnel opens. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about that.
Mr. Keith Vaz: What concerns me about the White Paper is the lack of emphasis on safety measures. In regard to the A46-A47 link road, the major road that will link Nottingham to Peterborough through Leicester, the Secretary of State should note that the local authority has said many times that it does not have the resources to meet the safety objections raised by local residents. What assurances can the Minister give the House about expenditure by the Government on safety measures, as opposed to merely building more roads?
Mr. Channon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned safety. An important spin-off of the White Paper will be the effect on safety. I estimate that about 16 per cent. of the expenditure will have direct safety consequences. With more motorways and trunk roads, built to better standards, it is likely that the number of accidents will come down. As we all know, motorways are the safest roads in the country, and trunk roads are infinitely safer than roads in the middle of towns and cities. The programme will have beneficial effects for road safety. I am determined to meet our target. That will help us. On the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about one road, I had better write to him, but I am anxious that safety should be enhanced.
Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend is an intelligent and well-educated man. Will he therefore accept the logic that, when he says in his statement that rail's share of traffic is less than one tenth of that on the roads, that does not need to be examined too far for one to understand why? The more we put into roads while neglecting the railways, the more the discrepancy will grow. Can he explain why British Rail cannot meet his Department's grotesquely overrated criteria simply to electrify the line between Ashford and Hastings for Channel tunnel traffic, yet he can stand up and propose to drive a motorway from the Channel tunnel to Southampton without any justification in financial terms as against the costs of rail?
Which of the following two courses has my right hon. Friend taken? Has he said, "We can get another £7 billion
490
for transport infrastructure. Shall we see if that money is better spent on roads v. rail?", or has he simply said, "Here is £7 billion. We will have roads, roads, roads, boys. Let us do what the Department of Transport always does."
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his preliminary remarks, which were right. Most unusually, he was inaccurate in his later remarks. British Rail is planning to invest £4 billion in the railways over the next five years, of which over £1 billion is earmarked for Network SouthEast. By the end of the decade, BR will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and electrified 60 per cent. of InterCity and about 30 per cent. of the total route mileage, the biggest rail renewal programme since the transfer from steam to diesel.
My hon. Friend asks about new railway lines. That is major investment, which we look at on its merits to see if an investment case is made out. I assure my hon. Friend —he knows this well—that no British Rail investment case has yet been turned down during the lifetime of this Government. Indeed, 30 major investment projects have been approved by Ministers since the Government objectives were first set in October 1983.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am extremely anxious to expand the railways as well as the road system to meet the needs of Britain's transport infrastructure. British Rail is at present expanding, not contracting. I am certain that it will go on expanding and not contracting, and I should like to have more discussions with my hon. Friend about that very point.
Mr. Robert Hughes: How much money is to be spent in Scotland on the roads? Is money being made available for the A96 north of Aberdeen, between Aberdeen and Inverness, which is an extremely dangerous road? What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to bring to fruition the electrification of the east coast main line between London and Aberdeen by having the Edinburgh to Aberdeen line electrified? Will he confirm that he has made information available to his counterparts in England, whereas Scots Members have no information whatever? Will he answer those questions and not rely on Ministers at the Scottish Office to do so?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Member and I are old acquaintances. He would be surprised if I had an encyclopaedic knowledge of Scottish roads, as he knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for them. I have done my best to be helpful to English Members. If that was wrong, I shall never do it again—[Interruption.] I have done my best to help them in the past.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about Scottish roads expenditure is that, as he knows, there is an automatic formula by which Scotland gets a proportion of the roads expenditure in England; I believe that 10 eighty-fifths is the normal proportion for Scotland. [Interruption.] That was worked out long ago, and not by me. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has a question down on the subject, showing that attention has been drawn to the matter.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the electrification of the line from London to Aberdeen is that, if an investment proposal was put forward by British Rail, I would look at it. The hon. Gentleman will welcome the news that, under the present plans for the electrification of the east coast main line, the journey to Aberdeen will be about 20 minutes shorter.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper and especially on his announcement of new trunk road improvements in East Sussex. There is a proposal in the White Paper that there should be a study of an east-west strategic route between Kent and Hampshire. I recognise that national and regional requirements may have given rise to the need for such a study, as there is already some anxiety about the precise location of this route. May we have an assurance that East Sussex will be involved in that study, so that local interests may be looked after?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. He will know that the studies listed in the White Paper are investigations into possible needs for additional capacity. They may or may not lead to proposals for schemes, which would need to be considered before they were put in the programme. Were they to result in schemes to be put in the programme, the rights of everyone affected would he taken into account in that there would be full public consultation and public inquiries. East Sussex and any other county council that was affected would have its views taken into account. I hope that my hon. Friend feels reassured by that answer.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State give a pledge that the central London road assessment study, which threatens areas such as Leyton, Walthamstow and Hackney Marshes will be scrapped? What faith can we have that those roads will be environmentally sound, when roads such as the M11 link road, which is to go through my constituency, has been denied a tunnel by the Department? Will he put up the money for that to go in a tunnel? Is not the plan for a country which is not green but motorway grey?
Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I quite understood the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He made a brief intervention on the question of the M11 last week, every word of which I read with considerable interest and care. I am not announcing any decision on the assessment studies this afternoon; that will come later on. As the House understands, the general thrust of the White Paper relates largely to roads between cities, not conditions inside London, which we will have other opportunities to debate. I have somehow become aware of what the hon. Gentleman thinks about our road schemes.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that anyone with an ounce of objectivity must congratulate him on winning this amount of money from the Treasury and providing such a forthright statement to the House? Anyone who does not think that should have been elected as the deputy Leader of the Opposition, but that is another matter. Will my right hon. Friend consider the position in the south-west, not just—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure on time.
Sir Peter Emery: Jealousy will get people nowhere. Will the Secretary of State look at the roads to the south-west, where he will see that there is no blue motorway from Andover, from east to west? Will he look particularly at the improvements proposed to ensure that dual carriageways, not single carriageways, will be built? Single carriageways are being scheduled and opened, but they are out of date before they are opened and, in the long run, will cost the country much more money.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the scale of expenditure. The amount and timing of the expenditure will be a matter for decision in the public expenditure survey, in the usual way. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the south-west. I hope that he will be pleased about the upgrading of the A30 from Honiton to Ironbridge, and with the Wilmington bypass on the A35. I am sure that he will also have seen that we are assessing the needs of the route of the A38 from Exeter to Plymouth, which might have some effect in the south-west. I shall bear in mind what he says. One effect of the programme will be that the number of single carriageways will be considerably reduced as a proportion of the total road programme, because there will be many changes from single to dual carriageways. I think that I can meet my hon. Friend's points almost in their entirety.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Why has not the Secretary of State taken the opportunity to accept the case for a second east-west link, trans-Pennine motorway to link the industrial areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire? Would not the natural place for that be an eastwards extension of the M65 to link with the M62 and M1?
Mr. Channon: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has not yet had time to read table 2 of the White Paper, but when he gets round to doing so, he will see that we propose to do exactly that. We propose to study a major trans-Pennine route corridor, and
"Provision of additional capacity between south Lancashire and Yorkshire"
I think that he will find shat satisfactory. There are problems with the national parks, and I welcome his views on that point.
Mr. Tony Banks: We will soon get rid of them.
Mr. Channon: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, I will take it into account.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend will be congratulated by many people in my constituency tonight, because there are no fewer than four improvement schemes for the Ryedale area in the White Paper. That entirely reflects the thriving economy in the greater York area and the need for these roads. Will my right hon. Friend think again about the A 19 between York and Thirsk, which needs to be dual carriageway?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I hoped and believed might conceivably be pleased. He will see that some of the A19—Norton to Parkway—will become a dual three-lane road. I note what he says about the single carriageway bypasses of Shipton by Beningbrough and Thormanby, which we shall look at with his points in mind.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I suggest that, when the Minister produces a statement, before announcing it he puts it in the Vote Office rather than causing chaos in the Lobby? That the Minister should produce statements in writing for Members before announcing them is a handy development, for which he certainly has my support.
What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that environmental damage from these road proposals is minimised? People are apprehensive about that. For example, does he recognise the enormous costs

493
involved in tunnelling the proposed Aire valley road at Shipley, which will amount to £90 million? I hope that he is prepared to spend that sort of money.
Will the Secretary of State be prepared to make more generous grants for railway sidings—the statement appears to contain only one comment by way of an aside on that? Will he provide such grants to encourage traffic on rail when the sidings are installed? Will he also consider railway developments such as the cross—Bradford rail link and not concentrate too much merely on roads?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that I tried to tell Members roughly how their constituencies would be affected by the White Paper before making this announcement. I shall bear in mind any improvements that might be made in the system that we have adopted.
Of course, we are looking at all sorts of rail studies. The hon. Gentleman will be especially pleased that we are examining section 8 grants to see whether they can be improved.
There is always a difficult balance to be struck in environmental matters. As we are widening roads more than in the past, there will be less effect on the environment, because fewer roads will have to be built. The hon. Gentleman is right about the environment; we shall carefully look into it, and difficult cost judgments will have to be made.
Mr. Michael Stern: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I thank him not only on behalf of the south-west but on behalf of my constituents for his announcement about an Avonmouth relief road, which was campaigned for by my predecessor, by my predecessor's predecessor—and by his predecessor, Martin Maclaren. My right hon. Friend has sensibly not given the date of construction. Will he give me some sign of when I must start camping on his doorstep in order to get the Avonmouth relief road started?
Mr. Channon: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is right to say that he and his predecessors have actively campaigned for this road, which I am glad to have been able to announce today.
As for the exact timing, the House will see in paragraph 32 that we shall have a full roads report later in the year which will set out the complete and detailed road programme with supporting information. That will be the moment to start camping: I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend then.
Mr. Tony Banks: To me, the White Paper represents motorway madness par excellence. I would have been prepared to cheer the right hon. Gentleman if he had announced a doubling of investment in the railways, which is what the people of this country clearly want. They do not want this amount spent on roads.
I have looked through the document as quickly as possible. Where is the big private sector investment to come from? Or is this just a great big transfer of cash from the taxpayer to the British Road Federation lobby, as represented here by Conservative Members?
The only thing that distinguishes this from other White Papers is that, despite all the blank spaces, there are no
494
pictures of grinning Ministers in it. Could it be that the right hon. Gentleman's photo has been vetoed on the grounds that he will not be in his position much longer?
Mr. Channon: We have very nearly doubled investment in the railways, and I hope that when that happens the hon. Gentleman will send me a present—
Mr. Tony Banks: I will lead the cheering.
Mr. Channon: Well, I look forward to that.
We are on our way to doubling investment in the railways, compared with what the Labour party spent when in office.
The hon. Gentleman complains about improvements to the motorways. I think that he will find that most Members in all parts of the House recognise that, if their constituencies are to flourish, they must have better transport links. Those who represent seats in the north and the midlands would be surprised at what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Henry Bellingham:: Is the Secretary of State aware that this White Paper will be met with jubilation in Norfolk, particularly in west Norfolk? The Minister has selected two strategic routes into Norfolk —the A11 and the A47—to underpin Norfolk's economic prosperity and assure its competitive position for 1992.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful. I am well aware of the importance of dualling the A11 to Norwich. What we have done for the railways and roads in the King's Lynn area will make my hon. Friend's constituents feel that we are responsive to his pressures and to the need to help Norfolk.
Mr. Max Madden: Are we right to think that, in part, the widening of motorways is to facilitate the introduction of toll charges? On the Airedale route, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he and his ministerial colleagues are keeping an open mind on all the route options, including the tunnel? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the vast majority of citizens of Bradford are waiting to hear an announcement from him that he will find the modest amount of money needed to electrify the railway line between Bradford and Leeds?
Mr. Channon: That is for another day. However, as I have told other hon. Members, we look at any investment programme that is proposed. There would be no question of tolling any motorway unless primary legislation were put before the House and passed. What I have announced today is a massive expansion of the Government's motorway and trunk road programme, which will help Yorkshire and many other parts of the country. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that it will help his city, too.
Mr. Alan Amos: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the north-eastern region for the improvements to the A1, the A69 and the A19? Will he also accept the thanks of the north-eastern region for the fact that the construction of that massive programme will involve more raw materials and skilled labour, both of which the north-east has in abundance?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have already said, the programme will provide the basis

495
for a comprehensive review of the Al route, including the investigation of the possibility of it having full motorway status from London to Tyneside.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Prescott.
Mr. Prescott rose—
Hon. Members: No!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many of the 2,700 miles of new and improved road will be completed and how much of the new £7 billion of expenditure will be spent in the two years before the general election?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must contain himslf with patience, because, as I told the House—and it is said clearly in the White Paper—I shall publish the details and the timings later this year. The hon. Gentleman will look forward to receiving them.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am still on my feet.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I can anticipate the points of order. I say to the whole House that I can fully understand the desire to ask questions about the statement, but 38 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the subsequent debate. It is a very difficult balance for the Chair to strike. I am not responsible for the timing of statements. I have to say to the whole House that, of course, as is my usual practice, I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on this matter, because I am not prepared to be challenged and I cannot say any more than I have.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I would in no way wish to challenge your decision. You have acknowledged that this is an important statement, but said that there is an important debate afterwards in which a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to catch your eye. I would just point out that far more Conservative Members have been in attendance during questions on the statement—on a ratio of at least 3:1—than Labour Members, because they were not interested. I suggest that in future, when there are three times as many hon. Members present on this side of the House as on the other, you reflect that fact in those hon. Members whom you call.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will take Mr. Robert Hughes.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for taking this point of order. I commend entirely the initiative taken by the Secretary of
496
State in seeking to inform hon. Members in the way he has done. I hope that that will be encouragement to other Ministers to do the same.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that written question 221 from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) which the Secretary of State said he hoped would be answered, has not been answered by a Scottish Minister. I checked two minutes ago with the Library, and the written answers to questions from the Scottish Office had not arrived. As the Secretary of State will know, and I think most people will confirm, I am certainly not a Scottish nationalist and I do not play the Scottish card in any sense, but I feel that the Leader of the House, who is present, should make a statement and assure the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the House on Monday and make a statement. It is intolerable that a Minister should come to the House to make a statement on English roads and should plant a question on the Order Paper—with the funny little tree mark on it—which will allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to have a press conference in Edinburgh, but which will deny Scottish Members of Parliament the opportunity to question him directly.
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to hon. Members that they are doing a disservice to their colleagues by persisting in raising points of order. I anticipate that it is because hon. Members—[Interruption] Order. It is because hon. Members have not been called on the statement. I am sorry, and I shall bear them in mind in the future.
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Roads (White Paper)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 12 JUNE
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Ms. Joyce Quin

  Mr. Harry Barnes

  Mr. John McFall

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 666) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 615) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Points of Order
Mr. Michael Brown Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is not, in any way, a delaying tactic.
Mr. Brown: I simply want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is fair for one Opposition hon. Member representing Humberside to be called twice when other Conservative Members representing Humberside were not called at all.
Mr. Speaker: It is the usual practice, and has been for many years, for the Front-Bench spokesmen to be called briefly at the end of a statement if they so wish.
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do hope that this is not an attempt to delay a debate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The law and order party. This is sheer organised hooliganism.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows how many hon. Members wanted to participate in questions on the statement. We now have a privilege motion. That is a serious matter which rarely occurs. It is a debatable motion and I hope that business will not be delayed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order from the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell the House that I am concerned—I hope that I am wrong—that this appears to be an attempt to delay getting on to an important debate.
Mr. McLoughlin: This is an attempt not to delay, but to protect Back Benchers, about whom you often speak, Mr. Speaker. Will you reflect, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which Members were called this afternoon? Are you aware that in business questions—
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is challenging the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are in the House of Commons.
Mr. Cryer: Exactly.
Mr. McLoughlin: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that during business questions you called two Opposition Members without calling anyone from the Conservative Benches?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am aware because mistakenly I called two Members from the Government Benches.
Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I do not wish to challenge in any way your decision to bring the questions on the statement to an end, I ask you to bear in mind the fact that, although you called hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent many regions, you did not call one Member representing the north-west, which figures quite prominently in the statement.
Mr. Speaker: If I did not, I am sorry.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon it is obvious that there has been a great deal more interest in the statement on the Conservative Benches than on the Opposition Benches. In future, will you bear in mind the number of people sitting on the Conservative Benches, who rise to catch your eye, when dealing with similar statements, which are of a constituency rather than a party political nature? After all, the Labour party policy document published today has but 20 lines on the subject of roads—nothing more.
Mr. Tony Banks: Very sensible.
Mr. Speaker: I always bear such matters in mind.
Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I am hearing no more points of order. Ms. Clare Short.

Privilege
4.53 pm
Ms. Clare Short: I wish to call attention to the complaint by Mr. Anthony Dagnan that he has received adverse treatment in his employment with Birmingham city council as a consequence of acting as the agent for a petition against the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.
I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that people often consider that the issue of parliamentary privilege concerns the rights of Members, who are generally seen as a privileged group, and that it rarely evokes much public sympathy. This case concerns the democratic rights of an ordinary citizen. I believe that it is extremely important for Parliament to take seriously a complaint of pressure being exerted on an individual who seeks to exercise his democratic right to petition Parliament against a private Bill.
The individual concerned is Mr. Anthony Paul Dagnan, who has worked for about 18 years for the treasury department of Birmingham city council. He enjoys motor racing and was originally pleased when Birmingham city council decided to take powers to organise a road race in the centre of the city. But then, in common with many others in Birmingham, he became increasingly concerned at the way in which the road race was run. He was concerned about the costs to the city council and that many of them were not included in the road race accounts. He was also concerned at the way in which the legal requirement in the existing Bill—that it should break even in five years or the council's powers to run the race would lapse—was got around by finding £1 million and claiming that the race promotes the city so well that it is worth £1 million from the people of the city. Many of us disagree.
When the city council decided to put a further Bill to the House that would extend the road race to four days and remove many of the previous constraints which protected people to some extent from a further waste of money, Mr. Dagnan, in common with many people in Birmingham, felt that that was wrong. He therefore set out to discover what he could do about it, and he found that individuals have the right to petition the House of Commons against a private Bill.
Mr. Dagnan sought to petition as an individual, but strangely enough he was not allowed to do so as individual citizens are not allowed to petition against their city council because, necessarily, the city council represents them. I believe that that is a Jesuitical argument. Mr. Dagnan also persuaded his union branch—the Birmingham city branch of the National and Local Government Officers Association—that it should petition. He offered to represent his union. Mr. Dagnan appeared before the Committee and I am told that he was an impressive witness. In common with many of my constituents, he has no resources—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go into the merits of the case. She is making a submission that this matter should he sent to the Committee of Privileges.
Ms. Short: I will not go into the merits of the case as I hope to do so on another occasion.
Mr. Dagnan had to pay his own fares to come to the House and take time off work. As an aside, I believe that the House should look into the costs to private individuals who seek to petition the House. Some may be represented by lawyers who are paid great fees, but other individuals have to pay their own fares to get here.
Mr. Dagnan took time off work and paid his fares to get to the House because he believes that the Bill is wrong, that it is bad for the citizens of Birmingham and bad for the interests of council workers. I stress that he has no personal interest in the case. He is acting against the Bill as a citizen because he believes that that is the right thing to do. As a result of his actions, however, he has been called in and told that he cannot continue the job that he has performed and enjoyed for so many years. He has been offered alternative employment which he does not consider acceptable. I must make it clear that it is not alleged that he has in any way abused his position or used any information that came to him as part of his job. He used only information that is publicly available in Birmingham. As a result of his difficulties, Mr. Dagnan wrote to me asking me to raise the issue as a matter of privilege and I am pleased to do so.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has misled the Birmingham press by suggesting that this is simply a ploy to delay the progress of the road race Bill. I understand, however, that referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges will in no way delay that Bill. This is not a ploy—it concerns the rights of citizens to petition the House of Commons. That is a serious matter for Mr. Dagnan and for others who may wish to exercise their right. The hon. Member for Northfield had the cheek to say that there are no other arguments against the Bill, but he spent an hour promoting that Bill and thus prevented me from speaking. That race affects my constituents because it takes place in my constituency.
I believe that we should all be proud of people such as Paul Dagnan, an ordinary citizen determined to exercise his democratic right for what he considers to be fair and not out of any self interest. We need more people like Mr. Dagnan. Too many people feel absolutely powerless in this so-called democracy to exert their rights and stand up for what they believe is right.
I have already said that there is no ulterior motive in respect of the road race Bill, which we shall debate on another occasion. This is very much a matter of the little man, the ordinary citizen, against the system. I have sought to bring Mr. Dagnan's views before the House of Commons. He has been pressurised to leave a job that he enjoys and is good at because he has exercised his democratic right. That is a serious matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that Mr. Dagnan's complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges both to protect Mr. Dagnan, who ought not to be punished for having done this, and to protect others coming after him who ought to have a similar right.
5 pm
Mr. Roger King: I first heard of your statement yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, from a third-hand source. I was not present in the Chamber, so I was not too clear about what was said at that time. Together with a few city officials, I expressed my

501
indignation about what was taking place. I may have misunderstood what happened in the Chamber. I was reported as saying that this was a time-wasting ploy by opponents of the Bill.
I have attended the Committee stage of the Bill on a number of occasions. The petitioners' presentation of their case against the Bill has been extremely good. They have argued their case effectively, and I have no doubt that the Committee will bear that in mind. My comment was directed at what I thought was an attempt to delay the Bill. Having looked at Hansard, I now understand that you, Mr. Speaker, made a statement as a result of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has moved her motion, as she is perfectly entitled to do. I apologise if anyone has misunderstood the motives behind my statement.
Mr. Dagnan has been employed by Birmingham city council for 18 years as an auditor clerk. He is now employed as an auditor. At the moment he has been granted unpaid leave of absence to act as an agent for petitioners against the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill. Until this morning, when the Committee stage of the Bill was completed, he could be seen actively pursuing that interest, speaking on behalf of his union—NALGO—of which he is an official.
Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that Mr. Dagnan has been given unpaid leave of absence? I do not think that he got that degree of co-operation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House should confine itself to whether the matter ought to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. King: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. My information is that Birmingham city council has allowed Mr. Dagnan time to appear before the Committee. I stand to be corrected if that is not the case.
The problems that the hon. Member for Ladywood has mentioned are far more complicated and extend over a greater period of time than she suggested. It is not just a question of concerning ourselves with any pressure that council officials and political leaders of the city of Birmingham have placed on any party seeking to object to the Bill. The matter that has concerned the council over a fairly long period is the right of a city official, in his capacity as an auditor within the treasurer's department, to challenge the city accounts with the benefit of obviously sensitive information. There is no evidence that Mr. Dagnan has used information in that way, but it has placed him under some strain in his dealings with various departments of the city council—the engineer's department, in particular, where the co-operation to which he is entitled as an auditor has been less than forthcoming due to the fear that information given to him might be transferred to other people. I stress that it is a fear, but it is a real concern.
When the matter was originally discussed in February this year, it was made abundantly clear to Mr. Dagnan that the problem, as the city thought, was that if he persisted in challenging the city's accounts and wished to take part in petitioning against the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill he would be in a privileged position in having access to sensitive financial information and it would be very difficult for the council to make that
502
information available to other petitioners. During the discussions which took place over a certain period it was suggested that in view of Mr. Dagnan's desire to take part in petitioning against the Bill he might agree to move to another part of the treasurer's department on the same salary scale.
City officials have said that on only one occasion did the subject of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill arise during discussions with Mr. Dagnan. He has not been placed under any pressure whatever. The council strongly refutes all the allegations made by the hon. Member for Ladywood. However, the council feels that the best course of action, if it is the wish of the House, is that the matter should be discussed and that evidence should be presented to the Committee of Privileges so that the truth will come out. There are no skeletons in the cupboard. The council believes that it has a very strong case. It has sought at no stage to victimise Mr. Dagnan. It has sought only to point out to him the sensitivity of his present position and his present actions and the need to protect the city and its ratepayers. The city will not oppose the hon. Lady's motion, if it is the wish of the House that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We look forward to a very thorough investigation and to the eventual upholding of the city's views.
5.6 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: As one of the members of the Committee considering the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill, I should like to put on record the fact that Mr. Paul Dagnan conducted himself in an exemplary fashion throughout his evidence. Although he had the opportunity to prolong the case, had he so wished, he was extremely brief and eloquent and —regardless of the merits of his argument, which is a matter for the Committee to decide later—made a major impression on the members of the Commitee.
5.7 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have heard a very serious allegation by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on behalf of one of her constituents, and I consider that you, Mr. Speaker, were wholly right to give this debate precedence over the business of the House set down today. However, with an eye to the important debate that is to follow and mindful of the time already taken up in discussing next week's business and the Government's plans to improve the road system, I will be brief.
The privileges of this House are its defensive ramparts, which enable it to go about its business free from external threat, internal disorder and such other pressures irrelevant to the merits of the case. As "Erskine May" puts it, they are
"rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers".
In recognition of the importance to the House of information provided by witnesses and petitioners, that protection may be extended in certain cases to those other than Members and Officers. Again "Erskine May" makes it clear that
"Petitioners are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament and conduct calculated to deter them from preferring or presenting petitions may be treated as a breach of privilege".

503
I have to say that I have found some difficulty in identifying a relevant precedent for this motion, at least in this century. Perhaps the most likely contender is the case of Mr. W. A. Grimshaw, who complained to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1975 that he had been made redundant by the National Coal Board after giving evidence to the Committee critical of his employers. Although not a precise parallel, this case has relevance in that in both cases there is an allegation of victimisation by an employer arising from the actions of an individual in relation to the business of this House. What that case—which, incidentally, resulted in a finding by the Committee of Privileges that no breach of privilege had, in fact, occurred—demonstrates is that the Committee, if set up as a result of this debate, will have to determine three things: whether the individual concerned was moved by his employers because he had petitioned against the Bill; whether that move was to his detriment; and, if so, whether those events amounted to a breach of privilege. The Committee will therefore need to inquire closely into the events which have taken place, and then act in a quasi-judicial capacity to recommend to the House whether a breach has in fact taken place and, if so, what action the House should take.
We have had a useful, short debate and I am left in no doubt that if the hon. Lady considers it right to press her motion the House should support her in resolving to constitute a Committee of Privileges to carry out whatever inquiries seem to he needed and to make recommendations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Developments in the European Community
5.10 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Developments in the European Community July-December 1988 (Cm. 641).
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I intend to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches and others who may be called before that time will bear in mind the pressure to speak in this important debate.
Mrs. Chalker: It is right that this debate comes just two months after the publication of the White Paper. It is an understatement to say that there is very widespread interest in European issues at present. The debate is an important opportunity to look forward, and to reflect on the second six months of 1988.
My main purpose is to cover the elements of Community policy in the period under review—the White Paper, Cm. 641. The key themes for discussion in the weeks leading up to the Madrid European Council closely reflect the themes of the six-month review. We also have before us the first special report of the Select Committee on European Legislation of last year.
In 1988 we secured two major achievements. The first was a substantial reform of Community finances and the CAP in February. The second was real progress towards the completion of the single market programme.
The groundwork had been laid by previous Conservative Governments. In the 1960s Conservatives had the vision to see that Britain's future was as a member of the Community. Both in opposition and in government we worked to find a way to make a successful application. In the early 1970s those efforts proved successful.
In the 1980s the Government have pursued Britain's interests in the Community through a tough and realistic analysis of the options and opportunities. Our aim has been, and it continues to be, to ensure that the 1992 campaign, as The Economist put it on 6 May:
"does to red tape and government controls, what Harry Houdini did to chains, straps and manacles".
In contrast to that excellent record, the Opposition have got failure down to a fine art. They failed to negotiate a single penny of refunds for Britain when they were in power. They have failed to devise a credible European policy—in fact they have changed their mind about membership five times at least—and while they are still arguing about which part of the 1960s baggage to dump the Community is striding confidently into the 1990s. It is small wonder that even the Socialist parties in Europe do not take Labour seriously. After all, it was the Labour leader who called the single market
"an abdication of responsibility".
Labour chose an anti-marketeer as the leader of its MEPs in Strasbourg. He has admitted that many of their economic policies would be illegal under the treaty of

505
Rome. Labour, if ever again in office, would face a stark choice: to abandon its economic policies or face expulsion from the Community.
By contrast, I have read with great interest some of the clearly expressed views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He makes a cogent case for commitment to Europe. Let me make it clear beyond anyone's contradiction that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the whole Government have long held that same commitment. But those of us who are involved in the day-to-day work believe that we must adopt a twin-track policy, declaring our commitment and, at the same time, following a common sense approach. That is how we can best serve Britain's interests, and we intend to do that.
I and, I suspect, a good number in this House part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley in his advocacy of a second chamber of the European Parliament. On the other hand, I share the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members who clearly agree with his view that the current arrangements for scrutinising European Community legislation in Westminster have not proved satisfactory.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The right hon. Lady said that the Labour party has to make a choice, but do not we all have to make a choice? Either we have democratic parliamentary self-government or we can have the treaty of Rome, but we cannot have both. Hon. Members from all parts of the House have to make that choice. The right hon. Lady has to make that choice.
Mrs. Chalker: The House has made that choice, and I understand that recently the Labour party has also made that choice. I am very worried that the hon. Gentleman may be out of kilter with his Front Bench, but that is not for the House to worry about, as it is a matter for him and for the Labour Front Bench.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour party has not discussed membership of the European Community for a number of years? A committee has made those decisions, and the matter still has to be discussed at the Labour party conference. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be called to speak this afternoon and will put a somewhat different case from that which has been developed by others.
No one should think that all Conservative Members are united on the question of the European Community. They are also divided because the nation is divided and we shall have to work out a solution that is satisfactory to the people. That discussion will continue for some considerable time.
Mrs. Chalker: Sometimes I think that the Labour party will never change. It is still the same dinosaur, the head not knowing what the tail is feeling. However, let me return to scrutiny.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Chalker: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would want me to talk about scrutiny.
Mr. Budgen: No doubt my right hon. Friend will move on to that in a moment.
My right hon. Friend dismissed the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) rather too quickly. Does she agree that, if not in the next few weeks, at some time in future, we are about to test the constitutional check on the Community of the European Court? At present that is a political court. It does not judge narrow laws by narrow criteria; it applies political tests of policy. Is it not true that there is no need for a senate, because the EEC has something approaching a supreme court which fulfils more or less that function? When the British Government come to test the effect of the Community, as they are bound to do in future disputes, we shall find out how legal or political that court is.
Mrs. Chalker: I look forward to reading and hearing the results of cases taken to the European Court of Justice. On many occasions when we have had cause to raise with the Commission or with the European Court of Justice the rules that we have followed, they have been found to be absolutely legal and legitimate. I am sure that that will be the case in future.
Mr. Budgen: What about the tobacco directive?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall come to tobacco later, as my hon. Friend is obviously seized by the issue.
I return to what I believe to be the House's real anxiety about scrutiny. I recognise it, and some hon. Members will remember that I referred to it in some detail in a debate in March. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been working hard on this issue to try to help hon. Members to resolve matters so that we get a situation that is much more consistent with the views expressed by hon. Members.
Mr. Tony Benn: Before the right hon. Lady leaves that matter, will she confirm that the problem is not just one of scrutiny, because when she and other Ministers to go Brussels the decisions that they reach are reached under prerogative powers? That is to say that there is no obligation, requirement or precedent for the House of Commons to give judgment on treaty making. Every law, whether on smoking, workers' rights or health, is made under prerogative. That is the problem. The question is not only whether we are told what the Government will do, but how that ancient constitutional question which reopens controversies of the 17th century is to be dealt with so that hon. Members can control Ministers using Crown powers to make in secret laws that apply in this country.
Mrs. Chalker: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on this issue on a number of occasions, and I have also heard some of his hon. Friends and some of mine speaking about it. It is right that the Leader of the House, in co-operation with the Scrutiny Committee, and the Procedure Committee, should be discussing these issues. It is not for me to say how we should resolve matters in the best interests of the necessary scrutiny that the House should undertake. It is right that the efforts being made by the Leader of the House should be strongly supported.
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way again. We were asked to be brief and I have allowed about five interventions in the first 12 minutes. Now I want to get on with the debate.
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. the Minister has made it quite clear that she is not giving way.
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order. Would it not help the debate if we could get a clear answer to an important constitutional point? My right hon. Friend—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point for debate.
Mrs. Chalker: I should like to return to the issue of scrutiny because it is important. The volume of work in Brussels has meant constant work for all of us, not least for the House. Single market measures have added to an already heavy legislative load. In 1988 we had a record number of debates on EC matters—39 debates on 109 documents. This year the pace has continued and, as hon. Members know only too well, we have had eight debates on 13 documents in the last fortnight.
I am aware that hon. Members consider these late-night debates to be a growing burden on the House. As most hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Lord President is looking at that matter because we want to improve the present system of EC legislation scrutiny. I look forward to hearing the comments of hon. Members on new ways of carrying out the scrutiny process.
In 1988 we saw excellent progress towards building the type of single market that is wanted by all the people of Europe. It is built on free market principles of encouraging enterprise, developing consumer choice and seeking higher growth. That is how we shall achieve greater prosperity for all in Britain and in the Community.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am very pleased to hear that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is considering giving better powers of scrutiny to the House in some way or other. Could my right hon. Friend share with us at this early stage some of the ideas that are running through her mind so that we can get our minds working on similar lines?
Mrs. Chalker: I would be foolish in the extreme to share secrets with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) because they would no longer remain secret. Views and ideas should be forwarded via the Leader of the House to the Scrutiny Committee and the Procedure Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will do that.
I should like to continue on the topic of the single market because that has been responsible for the main part of our work in the second half of last year and certainly forms a large part of the scrutiny that I have described. The treaty of Rome has always been a charter for economic liberalism. These policies are working well in the United Kingdom and now our partners want them to work throughout the European Community.
Last year we agreed nearly 100 single market measures. Fifty-four were achieved under the Greek presidency in the period under review in our debate. That means that we have agreed nearly half of the total from the Commission's White Paper. In short, there can be no turning back—a fact well recognised by the Heads of Government at the Hanover summit. The measures that we have agreed are opening markets and encouraging enterprise. Exchange controls will be abolished for most member states by 1990.
508
Britain did it in 1979 and other partners are now following suit. Nine years later we and the Commission have had to persuade the remainder to do likewise. This step will bring considerable benefits to consumers, traders and the business community.
In 1988 we provided for the phasing out of lorry quotas. We abolished restrictions on non-life insurance and on the right of professionals to practise Communitywide. 'We adopted rules that will force liberalisation in public purchasing which accounts for no less than 15 per cent. of Community GDP. We adopted numerous constructive measures in the fields of financial services standards and food law. That is how committed Europeans work in practice, steadily advancing the ideals that they believe in.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend has said something that is most worrying. Who has told her that there is liberalisation in non-life insurance? That is not the case. I have carefully read the directive on insurance companies. It is proposed that in six countries there will be an element of liberality on what are called large risks, which means that we might be able to insure the Eiffel Tower if the French would consider it. There is also what is called the "cunul" rule which was put in by the Commission. It says that if one state considers that it can offer the same service it has power not to let other states in. The Minister has said that liberalisation will come about and, of course, it would be wonderful if that were to happen, but I am afraid that whoever told her that there will be complete liberality on non-life insurance was talking a load of rubbish.
Mrs. Chalker: I do not like to say this to my hon. Friend, but I am afraid I must tell him that he has not got it quite right. I shall ask the expert on the subject, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, specifically to address that point in his winding-up speech because it obviously worries my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
Before my hon. Friend asked that question I was telling the House that we have been working steadily to advance the ideals in which we believe. But there are some genuine market needs that require other decisions. Competition policy must be enforced. We must tackle trade-distorting state aids. British policy has given a clear lead here. About one eightieth of our GDP goes in subsidies. Per employee, we give less subsidy than any other member state, and quite right too. The French, Germans and Italians all spend far too much. That distorts competition and damages Europe's ability to compete in the wider world.
The year 1988 was much more than a watershed in the single market. Its achievements were made possible only by the hard-fought deal that we secured at the Brussels European Council in February 1988. By the end of the year, we had clear evidence that those reforms were working. Agricultural expenditure was being brought firmly under control and intervention stocks were falling rapidly. The result is that agricultural spending is expected to be below the agreed ceiling in 1989. The February 1988 deal is bearing fruit.
As I said in our debate in March, many other things must be done as well. The problem of fraud is a serious budget challenge which requires serious action. That is why Britain took the initiative to put fraud high up the Community agenda. Our efforts have been instrumental in ensuring proper discussion of the annual report of the

509
Court of Auditors by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers. Such reports are helping to highlight the nature of fraud and the possible counter measures. Anti-fraud measures are now being built into agricultural regulations and into regulations governing payment of own resources.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of fraud, will she tell us whether she believes that fraud should be controlled by the Commission—which is not the case at the moment —or whether it should continue to be controlled by the nation states involved?
Mrs. Chalker: We must work out a way in which nation states are involved as well as the Commission. If one nation state is accusing another, we require the involvement of the Commission to resolve the problem. The Court of Auditors, which is already working so well, can help greatly to detect and deter fraud. That is what we are all about.
In the second half of 1988, Britain also secured a good deal from the structural funds. The United Kingdom has received more money from the European social fund than anyone else—both this year and last—totalling more than £400 million each year. We have also had particular success in obtaining funds from the European regional development fund for projects in Scotland, with more than £70 million for the Highlands and Islands integrated operation and more than £230 million for Strathclyde. We are now working hard on programmes for areas such as Merseyside, Manchester, Salford, Trafford, Tyne and Wear and Birmingham.
Although the 1992 process is going well, we must be alert to the risks to that process. In particular, we must fight any revival of the negative view in Europe that encourages the function of Governments to be one of interference and over-regulation. The success of the single market is based on deregulation, and so it must continue. However, there are some people in Europe, including some Opposition Members, who believe that the process requires new or detailed harmonised social legislation involving great grand schemes of social engineering. That leads to proposals such as that expounded by Commissioner Papandreou which would override differing national needs and practices. There is no case for Communitywide legislation requiring compulsory forms of worker participation. Such matters are best left to the market.
Of course, we want European action in some areas of social legislation. As the White Paper makes clear, last December we adopted an important framework regulation on health and safety at work. That must now be followed up with more detailed directives.
However, we must be selective. We shall fight hard against unnecessary social engineering. We see no need for the type of wide-ranging social charter that the Commission is now proposing. That would stifle the growth that will provide lasting jobs for Europe's unemployed. We shall therefore oppose it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: It is very important that we do not take a negative attitude on Europe. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that no one, unless motivated by political malice, could
510
accuse us of being negative about Europe if we argue for a genuinely free single market in which consumers are given the maximum opportunity to choose from competing systems of practice? That freedom of choice will be denied if Brussels insists on harmonising too many of those competing practices.
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has expressed a philosophy which I share with him.
I do not want there to be any doubt about what I am saying. There is a social dimension to Europe. It should involve the provision of training and retraining, the creation of new employment and securing further reductions in unemployment. However, that should come about as a result of deregulation and economic liberalisation. It should not occur as the result of forced decisions such as those we have heard mooted among some members of the Community. The social dimension must not involve the creation of new regulations which will hamper business.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I warmly welcome this part of the new twin-track foreign policy. I now understand that we are going to fight against the social charter and social engineering in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend give us chapter and verse about the legal basis on which we will veto or challenge and block, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assured us that she would at Question Time this afternoon, the rest of the Community's apparent enthusiasm for the social charter? If we are going to exercise a veto, what is the legal basis for that action?
Mrs. Chalker: I will give my hon. Friend some information. Now that Commissioner Papandreou has spelt out her ideas and intentions in some detail, we have discovered that she wants a solemn declaration. That is not a proposal for legislation as such. Any solemn declaration requires consensus. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out our view very clearly earlier this afternoon.
We shall have to see how the Commission follows up that view. At the moment, we simply have newspaper reports of plans which would give us great doubts and cause us to fight such proposals were they to come forward in the form of a directive.
There is definitely a social dimension, as I have just explained. But the proposed charter would take us in one direction only; it would create unemployment, not more jobs. That is why it is so clearly unacceptable to the Government.
Mr. Benn: The Minister spoke earlier about scrutiny by the House of Commons. Now she is talking about scrutiny by Ministers. Tory Back Benchers have questioned whether the Government are impotent to stop a charter because they have signed the Single European Act.
Mrs. Chalker: No.
Mr. Benn: Oh, yes. It is easy to repeat the rhetoric of Bruges. However, that rhetoric has no constitutional foundation, given the Single European Act. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether the British Government, let alone Members of Parliament, have any power to stop the charter if it emerges as an almost unanimously agreed directive.
Mr. John Butterfill rose—
Mrs. Chalker: I have already explained that the idea of the social charter is that it is a solemn declaration. It is not in directive form. If it came forward as a directive, it would state whether it was subject to qualified majority voting or to unanimity. When we know the details, we will be able to decide exactly what we should do. I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions when there are no directives relating to the solemn declaration outlined by Commissioner Papandreou.
Equally, I see no need for the Community to be involved in detailed areas of domestic policy such as classroom education.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me help my right hon. Friend. If she has not seen the charter, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has a copy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. This is a short debate and continuous interruptions prolong speeches.
Mrs. Chalker: As I said, we see no need for the Community to be involved in detailed areas of domestic policy such as classroom education or any of the other matters on which some commissioners seek to intervene. Decisions on such issues belong to national competence. That is in accordance with the treaty of Rome, and so it should remain.
On 17 April we had the publication of the Delors committee report on economic and monetary co-operation. That has also excited considerable interest. The committee was charged by all Heads of Government at the Hanover European Council in June 1988
"with the task of studying and proposing concrete stages leading towards economic and monetary union".
The Committee produced a thorough analysis. The report makes abundantly clear that economic and monetary union would take a very long time and require substantial treaty amendment. On the basis of the report, even the most ardent proponents would not claim that EMU was possible until well into next century, but it is not on the current agenda.
Many aspects of monetary co-operation are already on the agenda. Some have been there for many years. We can and should discuss them now. They include the financial aspects of completion of the single market such as capital liberalisation and improved economic and monetary co-operation.
In addition, we support other practical measures including the wider use of the privately traded ecu, and its use where appropriate in intervention; and increased holdings of EC currencies in foreign exchange reserves.
That is a substantial programme of technical measures. The Community should now concentrate on such practical steps, on which the United Kingdom already has a fine record. Britain has led the way in abolishing capital controls. We led the way in issuing Treasury bills denominated and payable in ecu. We hold ecu and a variety of EC currencies in the reserves.
So the Government will press for a procedure for working out, in the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers and the monetary committee, how best to ensure that more of the right practical steps of co-operation are taken.
Let me say a brief word about the extra dimension of the EC's relating with its neighbours and trading partners.
512
The Community must look beyond Europe, as we have always done. There must be no fortress Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said some time ago:
"the expansion of the world economy requires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade. It would be a betrayal if, while breaking down constraints on trade within Europe, the Community were to erect greater external protection. We must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home".
That message was well accepted by the whole Community. As the European Council said at Rhodes,
"the single market will not close in on itself".
The current GATT round gives the Community the chance to prove that it means what it says. In Britain, the Government intend to ensure that the reality reflects the rhetoric. The Uruguay round is crucial to the future of the world trading system. If it does not succeed, we shall all suffer.
The forthcoming European elections will give us a chance to hear what the people of Europe have to say on all those issues. They will also allow us to campaign on our European ideals and commitment. Our critics complain that we have joined the Community, but will not play by the rules. That is a travesty. Britain sticks to the rules and we work hard for British interests. Where we do not like the rules we seek to change them.
The Labour party plays only for its own electoral interests. That is why its approach to Europe is so different from the Government's. Our approach to Europe has an enormous advantage. It will be supported by the British people, as it always has been when Britain has a key role to play in the world. Every time that the British people have had to choose between success and failure over the last 10 years, they have chosen success.
I commend the motion to the House.
5.54 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, at the end to add:
'regrets that the condition of the British economy after 10 years of this Government leaves this country grossly ill-prepared for the challenge of the Single European Market; notes that Britain trails behind its main competitors in major social areas and that, in the light of the Single European Act enacted on a whipped vote and on a guillotine timetable set by the Government headed by the present Prime Minister, the level of accountability on decision-making to the House is totally inadequate; and calls for an approach to the European Community which is based on co-operation on policies for growth, environmental and regional protection, the valued contribution of women, and the central role of a high standard social agenda.'.
It is interesting that this debate, so long delayed, was opened by the Minister of State. There were repeated rumours this week that the Foreign Secretary would open it. In view of the renewed interest in the subject in the country, and particularly in the Conservative party, one would have thought that the Foreign Secretary might have graced us with his presence this evening. The Foreign Secretary chose to make a major speech this week at the CBI dinner and he was interviewed from the radio car for the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning. The only place that has not been graced with his presence as chief spokesman for the Government on this important matter is the House.
The Minister of State is assisted today not by her usual sidekick, the Paymaster General, who is also the chairman of the Tory party but is clearly being protected from his own troops this evening, but by another Postman Pat from

513
the Department of Trade and Industry. In view of the importance of the issue, the House has been short-changed.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Robertson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had a fair amount of air time this week on the radio in the family feud that has broken out inside the Conservative party, which we might come to at an appropriate time.
The Minister of State said that there is a new Conservative party policy on Europe. It is defined as being twin-track.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Since the hon. Gentleman's words are on the record, should it not also be on the record how few Opposition Members are present?
Mr. Robertson: That was not even clever. It betokens the Government's embarrassment at their divisions that that is the sort of level to which the debate can drop.
A twin-track approach has been well on display this week in the Conservative party. It means facing both ways at the same time. There have been two sets of early-day motions, two sets of letters to The Times, two sets of books being deployed, with two distinct and wildly contradictory views being put over.
The Government are in a hopeless mess. The federalists are at the throats of the nationalists. The maximatists are chewing up the minimalists. The free traders are against the regulators. Sovereignty obsessives are against the European union visionaries.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and Lord Cockfield, Lord Plumb and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—the last three of whom used to be in the magic circle, in which the Minister of State still is, however tenuously—are now arraigned against this upside-down Britannia.
The Prime Minister, who signed the Single European Act with its commitments to European union and majority voting, increased powers for the European Parliament, who rushed it through the House of Commons with the aid of a whipped vote and a guillotine, then forgot that she had done it all. They said of Ronald Reagan in the case of Irangate, "Guilty but asleep". Is it amnesia or hypocrisy that afflicts the Prime Minister?
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has gone through a farrago of falsehoods. Let us try to get some of the facts right. Can I just put one correction to him? There is but one EDM from the Conservative party on the Order Paper this week, and it starts off with the words "supports the Prime Minister".
Mr. Robertson: It is nice to see the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in the House and taking time off from running his fairground. I know that the Prime Minister will be personally reassured that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends who signed that early-day motion were actually supporting her.
The Prime Minister signed the Single European Act three years ago with her eyes wide open. It is sheer brass neck theatrically to denounce now the fact that we are being out-voted, which was the very consequence of her
514
signature. The Prime Minister is legendary as the mistress of detail. No item is too small to escape her omnipotent gaze, so her bleating now about what is coming on to the European agenda is bogus and wholly incredible. She supervised the reduction in Westminster's powers of decision. She supervised the workings of faceless networks of the national civil servants who really determine European law. It is the Prime Minister who suppresses information, and it is she who keeps the doors closed on the meetings of the Council of Ministers at which decisions are ultimately made. The Prime Minister has worked hard to keep Parliament in the dark about the actions taken by her Ministers in our name.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Did the hon. Gentleman support the Single European Act?
Mr. Robertson: That demonstrates the cleverness of the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who comes new to these debates, that I stood at this Dispatch Box to oppose the Single European Act on behalf of my party. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I warned the Prime Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends about what they were letting us in for. We warned her about the likely consequences of the majority voting increase. I voted in the Lobbies against the Single European Act. That is on the record—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who makes so much noise, can confirm the voting record for himself. When that decision was made and the treaty was signed, we made clear the reality that we would all have to live with. I take exception—
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Robertson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would exercise some patience.
The Prime Minister forced the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to sign the document on her behalf, and she forced it through the House with inadequate debate—yet she now tells the world that she did not realise what she was getting signed. That is what the issue is all about.
Mr. Taylor: Am I wholly wrong in saying only 10 of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the Bill's Third Reading? I believe that some of them are present in the Chamber now.
Mr. Robertson: That is complete nonsense. The hon. Gentleman can split hairs, and I cannot remember the precise time of day at which that Division took place.
Mr. Taylor: I will find that out for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robertson: We all say farewell to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) as he leaves the Chamber. No doubt he will return, and we shall see whether he has his calculator with him.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Whatever may have been the numbers voting on the Bill's Third Reading, does my hon. Friend recall that the final guillotined Committee and Third Reading stages took place very late at night? Does he recall also that in the programme "On the Record" broadcast last Sunday, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who has a particular record on these matters, stated that the Prime Minister signed the Single European Act—although it was really signed by the

515
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—with great reluctance? Does my hon. Friend recall also that, when the Prime Minister returned from the Stuttgart summit on other matters concerning European union, she could not cite any mandate for the Stuttgart arrangement—and I believe that there was no mandate for the Single European Act either?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend, whose credentials can never be questioned, makes a significant point in respect of the guillotined debates.
Mr. Michael Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) claims that there was no mandate for the Single European Act, which was the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of debate, not a point of order.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend made a significant point, particularly in view of the Minister's comments about the inadequacy of the scrutiny given by the House to European legislation and of her promise that more would be done. Right hon. and hon. Members who sat through previous European debates recall only too well that those promises have been made before. We can only hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will take on board the serious points made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I can cite one piece of evidence illustrating the Government's culpability. It may stagger right hon. and hon. Members and the public to know that the last oral statement to the House on the Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers—which is the most senior of all councils and is now so important that it is called the General Affairs Council—was made on 17 December 1986. It is two and one half years since the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on a meeting of the Council of Ministers, which is an astonishing record for a Prime Minister who dares to attack the Brussels bureaucracy. For the Prime Minister to posture as the last barrier in the way of a European super-state is breathtaking and sheer nerve. It will not convince many of the British people, who throughout history have despised counterfeit posturing and double standards in their leaders.
The Prime Minister has now served up the embers of the typically genteel Tory disagreement about what kind of future there should be for Europe, but it has been transformed into a blazing war which, like the aged leadership in Beijing, she watches helplessly, not knowing how to control it.
Last September in Bruges, the Prime Minister spoke of a European super-state and that concept, along with the "Socialists and standardisers" among her Right-wing fellow leaders, is still her chief target. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup described that as
"an abuse—an attempt to mislead the public on the nature of the European Community."
He might well do so, because a pamphlet published by Tory central office entitled "50 Questions and Answers on the European Community" posed the question:
"Isn't Britain becoming part of a United States of Europe?"
The answer given is:
516
"No. The Prime Minister has made the Conservative position quite clear. Progress toward completion of the Single Market by 1992 is NOT synonymous with progress towards a so-called 'United States of Europe' or a surrender of our independence, sovereignty or national identity."
So what is all the claptrap that we hear about a European super-state?
Mr. John Redwood: Although many right hon. and hon. Members welcome the Labour party's conversion to the European cause, can the hon. Gentleman say whether Labour now welcomes the Single European Act and all its consequences, as well as common taxation harmonised in Brussels and not fixed in this country?
Mr. Robertson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no, but we shall have to live with it. The answer to his second question is also no.
To cover up the economic weakness brought upon this country by her Government and the consequent vulnerability of our industry and commerce within the single European market place, and to divert attention from the social backwardness of our country as we face the challenges of real competition from our partners in the continent, this dishonest bogey of the Brussels super-state has been erected.
"Socialism by the back door" they call what most Conservatives in West Germany, the continent's most successful economy, regard as simple prerequisites for an effective single market. So-called Socialist and standardising bureaucrats are abused, although this central office pamphlet points out that there are fewer officials working in the European Commission than are employed by one borough council or even in the Tory-run Scottish Office in Edinburgh.
At a time of maximum challenge for Europe, with the single market looming before us, with Japanese and American competition looming over us, with opportunities for co-operation in science and technology and in environmental protection, when all these matters are there to be solved, with immense prizes or penalties for the people of this country, the Prime Minister's obsessive interest is in suppressing dissent in her Cabinet about the European monetary system, obstructing the creation of what the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday night at the CBI dinner called
"a level playing-field for Communitywide competition",
with the "high level of protection" that is mentioned in the Single European Act, and imposing from above, from No. 10 Downing street—
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Southend, East would just wait—opposing from above and from No. 10 a blinkered, limited big-business vision of Europe on Tory MEP candidates, Members of the House and, of course, her tired and browned-off colleagues within the Council of Ministers.
I give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Southend, East.
Mr. Taylor: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about this dramatic battle which the Labour party put up against this frightful Single European Act, which is undermining our democracy and which has caused all these troubles, how can he explain the fact that, on 10 July 1986, on this great vote on this historic occasion, there

517
were around 20 Members of the Labour party present to vote against it? If it is so important, how was it that the Labour party on that occasion, as on so many others, treated such a vital issue with such contempt—as they are doing today, with a handful of its supporters here discussing the situation?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member, before he struggled out of the Chamber, told us that it was 10 Labour Members. It is now 20, so that is double what he said. Even when he was living on the precipice in Glasgow, Cathcart he could recognise that as a slight error of judgment.
If the hon. Member for Southend, East had been present during all the hours for which we debated the Single European Act and all the divisions that we had, if he had been able to deliver any of the promised rebellions from his colleagues—all the ones who are making the noise now—perhaps the decision would have been remarkably different. If he had waited for a few more minutes in the Chamber he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) say that the key votes at that time were not on Third Reading but at an earlier stage, because the hon. Member for Southend, East did a deal with the Leader of the House on the timing of that debate so that it took place at a far later hour than anybody could possibly have envisaged.
Mrs. Chalker: We have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman about the absence of scrutiny, badly timed debates and inadequate control of technical legislation, and we hear quite a lot about 10 pm debates. We now have a debate in prime time on the Floor of the House, and what happens? Opposition Members are not here, and those of them who do turn up go on bickering about voting history. It does not augur well for the Labour party in Europe.
Mr. Robertson: The bickering about voting records is coming from the right hon. Lady's side of the House. If all her hon. Friends were here to support her this evening, I would be extremely surprised, because it is not the usual situation at all.
At the heart of the family squabble that has broken out in the Prime Minister's party is the Prime Minister's style in the Community. It is a flamboyant but notably unproductive style. It gets her noticed, but it rarely produces the goods for Britain. It produces fireworks and reactions from others but it alienates our friends and isolates our country. Britain is continually sidelined, marginalised and out-manoeuvred. That, we are to believe, is the mark of a patriot—the best European of all, as she proclaims in today's Daily Mail. But the real test is there and can be measured.
The reverberations of the Bruges speech may well be ringing round Europe, but how is this country faring, for instance, in the committees that will determine the technical standards that will apply in the single European market of 1992? There are two major standardising committees: one is CEN—the European Committee for Standardisation—and the other is CENELEC—the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation. There are 73 chairmanships and secretariats in the control of the Federal Republic of
518
Germany, with only 47 in the hands of Britain. No wonder Mr. John Banham, the director general of the CBI, said this:
"Britain is not putting enough resources behind the present negotiations in Brussels over standards, and this would be a very expensive mistake when we find we have to comply with German or French standards in the new trading environment of 1992."
This is more of an acid test of the British Community policy than anything we heard about in the Minister's speech this evening, and we fail that test by a mile. As the right hon. Member for Henley so eloquently put it in his book published last weekend—no doubt we shall hear from him if he catches your eye later this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker:
"Every hostile speech provokes at best despair, at worst contempt. The French and the Germans, at every sign of British aloofness, draw closer together."
That says it all—and that is somebody who is in the know and was once part of the charmed magic circle.
All the time, our economic position makes our bargaining position weaker and weaker. Our inflation rate is still higher than that of our competitors and is rising. Our interest rates are among the highest and they are not falling. Our trade deficit, especially with our Community partners, has now reached historic and crippling proportions.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, I have given way enough. Hon. Members have a right to speak later in the debate. I am not giving way.
In 1980 our trade in manufactured goods with Europe was roughly in balance.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: In normal circumstances I would do so, but it would be unfair to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who wish to speak later in the debate.
In 1980, our trade in manufactured goods with Europe was roughly in balance. Today it is in deficit by over £14 billion. In 1980, our manufacturing deficit with West Germany was £550 million, even then not a good figure, but in 1988 it had risen to £8 billion. Our deficit with France has doubled in eight years. Our deficit with Italy has increased by eight times in those eight years. Only with Greece and Ireland do we achieve a surplus. Yet the Prime Minister had the audacity, in a letter to me two weeks ago, to say:
"In manufactured goods, the import/export ratio has been doing rather better vis-à-vis the rest of the EC than with the rest of the world."
If one can produce these statistics in relation to the Community, that says a lot about the rest of the world.
This is a vivid example of how politicians can use, abuse and devalue statistics. This is the real indictment of this Government's policy in the Community. It has left Britain's economy pitifully weak to face the challenge of the European market and has kept us so socially backward that our opportunities will be all the more limited. That is why the partisan, dogmatic and self-defeating attitude to the social dimension so debilitates Britain's future.
Mr. Butterfill rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, I am not giving way again.
In addition to the crippling interest rates and the rising tide of imports, our level of investment in manufacturing

519
is lower than it was in 1979 when this Government came to power. Our training-in-skills record is appalling and we invest only 10 per cent. of what West Germany does in this field. Our investment in non-military research and development as a percentage of gross national product is the lowest of all advanced European industrialised countries.
The percentage of our population who are receiving higher education is lower than the equivalent percentage in Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, and our industries—open to the world as they are—stand acutely and uniquely vulnerable to takeovers, asset stripping and being swallowed up. But yesterday, without even a sight of the Commission's proposed social charter—an outline of a social charter—Ministers were pushed out into the street to condemn it out of hand, despite the fact that that document derives from one of the conclusions reached at the Rhodes summit and subscribed to by the Prime Minister. That conclusion stated that the
"European Council awaits such proposals as the Commission might consider useful to submit having drawn inspiration from the Social Charter of the Council of Europe."
The social charter is a binding instrument passed by the Council of Europe and voted for by the United Kingdom Government. It was presented yesterday by Madame Papandreou, voted for by all but one of the Commissioners—and described by the Prime Minister today as a Socialist charter.
The European Community has an economic and social committee made up of representatives from industry and the trade unions, as well as a good many independent people—academics and others—who were appointed by their individual Governments to sit and consider such matters. The social charter was put to that committee on 22 February, and only 22 out of 165 people voted against what the Prime Minister has today described as a Socialist charter.
On Monday this week, the Secretary of State for Health was sent to Brussels to be humiliated and out-voted by 11 to one on a simple, sensible protective scheme for cancer warnings on cigarette packets. Having experienced such humiliation—as a member of the Cabinet—the Secretary of State would have opened his Daily Mail today with fascinated interest to read the Prime Minister's comment to Sir David English that the scheme was
"This tobacco thing, the thing on the packet, it is not worth making a song and dance about … On its own it is not worth fighting about."
Now the Secretary of State for Health knows why he was sent out there: to be humiliated over something that was "not worth fighting about".
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, let me finish my catalogue of the Government's humiliations.
Next Monday the Secretary of State for Education will be sent to try to veto the Lingua project, a sensible plan to encourage more language teaching in schools and more exchanges of young people. That programme has no legislative consequences for this country, but we know that it is deeply desirable, and the Department of Education and Science was positively enthusiastic when it was originally floated here. We are also about to sabotage the Commission's plan on health and safety, despite the strong
520
support that the Secretary of State had given it. Now we want to veto its plan to allow pensioners to share travel concessions in individual countries.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Robertson: I shall give way very briefly.
Mr. Budgen: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my view of the European Court. Does he regard it as a political court? The Prime Minister must regard It as one. There is a great issue of principle involved in what constitutes a measure directed towards improving the internal market. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to authorise the testing of that principle in the court, it is plain that she has no real faith in the court and regards it as a political rather than a legal organisation.
Mr. Robertson: Reading the interview in today's Daily Mail, I wondered why the Prime Minister signed the Single European Act in the first place, and also whether she fully understands what she signed even now. Sir David English understood the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but it is clear from the answer that she gave him that the Prime Minister does not understand the technicalities of what she let herself in for when she signed the Act, or gave authority for the signature. Paragraph 3 of article 100A states:
"The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection."
I do not know whether the Prime Minister managed to convince herself, in the amazingly flamboyant interview in the Daily Mail which takes up the front page as well as two inside pages, but it is clear from the paper's editorial that she did not persuade Sir David English. The editorial, placed next to the interview, says:
"We admire her spirit. But we wonder about her tactics … When she approved with such a magisterial flourish her Government's signature to the Single European Act in 1986, did she fully realise the implications of what she was doing?".
Sir David may have got his knighthood, but I doubt that he will get the peerage for which he was probably aiming when he devoted three pages of his paper to the matter.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, I have gone far too far.
When will the Government realise that our European partners—whether they be Conservative, Liberal, Social Democrat or Socialist—believe that the same high standards mentioned in the Single European Act in relation to health and safety and working practices, in the workplace as well as in the environment, are prerequisites for the working of the single market? Our partners will not be held back by a British Government who believe in minimum standards.
Let me offer one helpful comment to the Minister of State, who I know does not share the prevailing view in the Government about the level playing field for competition referred to by the Foreign Secretary. Speaking at the Institute of Directors conference, the ambassador from the Federal Republic of Germany said:
"Our success in attaining the internal market depends in a very real way on simultaneous integration in the social field. We should work as far as possible and practicable for parity in social security and social benefits, in occupational safety requirements, vocational training, and last but not least in the field of worker participation.

521
Those are the words of a representative of a centre-Right Government, lecturing our Government on what may happen.
Mr. Butterfill rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way.
The Minister of State made the point that, before the next six-monthly debate on the European Community, the British electorate would have a chance to give its verdict on the conflicting visions presented to it on 15 June this year. Perhaps that will be a better test of opinion than any debate we have had in the House. The electorate will, of course, be confronted by the confusion on the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has said that he will campaign for those who believe in the vision that he stands for. No doubt the right hon. Member for Henley will support another small group of elite candidates, and the rest will be told precisely what to say by No 10 Downing street.
Alternative and sharp visions will, however, be on display in the election: visions of a party that wants to take Britain back to the little England of the past, and sees no future in Europe except in the deregulated free-for-all for big business, or of a party that is committed to Europewide co-operation and believes in doing for the environment what can be done only at European level; a party that is willing to cleanse our beaches, our rivers and our water supplies; a party that is willing to tackle multinational companies and unemployment without the Community; a party committed to protecting the vulnerable regions, industries, firms and people within the Community.
That depends on a party that believes in the Community, in co-operation and in mutual respect, in an atmosphere of building majorities and of political give and take which we all, barring the Prime Minister, know is the essential reality for any domestic or multinational system. It is in the Prime Minister's blindness to the dangers facing the country, her unpreparedness and her casual, careless disdain for the new politics of Europe that we see the threat to the country and disaster for the Conservative party.
6.20 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: I suppose that most of us are now Europeans of some sort, but what kind of Europe each of us wants seems to be a proper subject on which right hon. and hon. Members may differ. The representation on the two Front Benches is eloquent testimony that there are differences on both sides of the House. I could not identify in the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) any clear Labour party view about Europe. He had a certain amount of fun trying to knock down various Aunt Sallies, but I could not understand the Labour vision.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the speech with which she opened the debate, both for what she said and for what, perhaps wisely, she did not say. She was absolutely right to emphasise the contribution that we have made in the last decade to the development of the European Community and more particularly to the single market, which is in wide measure our creation. We have had great influence in liberalising
522
and in reducing expenditure on the agricultural policy which had got out of hand. We have benefited from the rather brazen attack by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the budget, and it was very much in our interest that she pursued that matter.
We need to continue emphasising the benefits of the current economic and financial thinking in this country which can make a great contribution to Europe, albeit with a certain modesty because we do have the highest rate of inflation in the Community and our living standards are not yet within reach of the living standards of the French, the Germans or, indeed, of the Benelux countries. So when we discuss social and other policies we should appreciate where we stand in comparison with our partners in the Community.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not embark on the proposition advanced in certain quarters that the real issue is between national sovereignty and federation. That is a windmill which should not be tilted at because it is not really there. I maintain that it is not, with some experience of the European movement since 1946. Indeed, I will go back further. In London 87 years ago, we proposed that the self-governing countries of the Empire, later the Commonwealth, should federate. The British Government put forward a proposal for a single imperial Government, eventually a single Parliament, a single imperial secretariat, a single navy and a customs union. Money did not come into it—we were all on gold. The proposal was turned down by the Colonies. If we could not get six mainly English-speaking, tremendously loyal and patriotic imperial countries, with only 20 or 30 years of self-government behind them, to federate, it is not likely that the ancient and famous states of Europe will go into a federation, whether directly or by the back door. It just will not happen.
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Amery: I am not giving way. Mr. Speaker has asked us to be brief.
As to sovereignty, we have already given up a good deal in other spheres. The biggest surrender has been in the Western European Union, where we have committed ourselves indefinitely to station troops and air forces on the continent.
The whole idea, launched by Alexander Hamilton 150 years ago, that there could be no choice—that there had to be either nation states or federation—has been proved wrong by the British. We had the Commonwealth, which was a great success, with political co-operation, with a preferential union—it was not quite a customs union—with a single reserve currency, sterling, and a joint defence policy. There are lessons from our own history that we can apply with advantage in Europe.
The European Community has been in existence for some 30 years—we were not part of it at the beginning—and it is already more than a Commonwealth, though miles less than a federation, and it will grow in its own mysterious way. When we look back on it, that will be when we can say what kind of constitution it is developing. It will not be federal, and it will be different from the Commonwealth. It will be something new, and only later shall we be able to measure our contribution to it.
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the delicate way in which she handled

523
the report of the Delors committee. I must confess that I was slightly shocked by what I would call the kneejerk reaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the report when it was published. I was shocked first for protocol reasons. Mr. Delors is a distinguished civil servant. He was previously a politician and may aspire to being one again, but at present he is the appointed, unelected top civil servant of the Commission. He was asked to produce a report and he did so. He is like the secretary to the Cabinet. We do not criticise a Cabinet secretary because we do not like his report. If we want to argue about the Delors report, we should do so with the other Ministers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should go to the other Finance Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is against the report. That is building up Mr. Delors unnecessarily. Since I had always understood that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to keep Brussels under control, we should not build up the Commission too much. If Mr. Delors has ambitions for a superstate, he will be delighted at the way in which my right hon. Friend has taken him on.
I was also worried because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, fastened on to paragraph 39 of the Delors report, which gives the impression that the Commission would like us to commit ourselves, before we embark on discussions, to the final goal of a single currency and a central bank. I have lived through all this two or three times before. When the Schuman plan was brought forward, we were asked to accept the idea of a supra-national high authority. Of course, such a high authority has never emerged. There is an authority, but it is not supra-national. At Messina we were told that we would have to accept a supra-national high authority, but General De Gaulle saw to it that there never was one.
I was horrified that we should take the matter as seriously as we appeared to have done. So, greatly daring, I went over to Brussels and asked Mr. Delors whether this was a condition or an indication. He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "If I am catching a train from Paris, destination Marseilles, and I find the train uncomfortable, or I change my mind about where to go, can I get off at Dijon or Lyons?" He replied, "Of course you may, and so may any of the other passengers. We simply would like you to have in mind where, on the whole, we think you should be going and where we hope you would like to go. But if experience teaches you that that is not where you want to go, then of course you must be free to get off. You do not surrender sovereignty in that sense."
The next point that worried me was the argument put forward by the Prime Minister that to have a single currency and a single bank must necessitate a federal Government. I am not sure that that is true. We had a single currency in the shape of gold, but all the gold standard countries went to war against each other in 1914, so there was not much sacrifice of sovereignty there. When we went off the gold standard, we produced the sterling currency, which was not a single currency but a reserve one —I shall return to that concept shortly—so I am not sure that it is a logical conclusion to suggest that it is not possible to have a single currency without having a federal Government.
The Delors report is a clever compromise between the maximalists and the minimalists with, as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the saving grace of not having a timetable, save that it urges those not already in
524
—particularly ourselves—to join the EMS by the summer of 1990. I can see the difficulties. For example, we have 8 per cent. inflation and it would be uncomfortable for us to join unless we can bring that down to a more reasonable figure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that, with God's grace, it will be down to 3 or 4 per cent. by that date. We do not know what the impact of the abandonment of exchange control would be on the French, Italian and other currencies. Delors says that it is already abandoned from the point of view of the corporate sector. We do riot know what the effect would be on the private sector. Those are some of the problems that we must face. Let us suppose that we could say, "Not just when the time is right, but when we have got our inflation down and we have been able to study the consequences of abandoning exchange controls by the other countries concerned, then we will join, and we hope that that would not be too far after 1990." I am not demanding that we do that, but I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.
We come to phase two, and a tactical problem arises. All the countries—apart from ourselves and a couple of others—which are members of the EMS start from the EMS in negotiating phase two. Delors sketches what it might be, but it is just a submission from technocrats, officials and some bankers. If we are not in the EMS, we are not at the starting gate. We are not in a position to negotiate about phase two. Yet phase two, it seems, could be of enormous interest to us and we might make a great contribution to it.
In 1931, when we went off the gold standard, all the experts thought that the heavens would fall in. On the contrary, however, we created a reserve currency which became second only to the dollar throughout the world, although it was without any gold or other foundation. It was not a single currency. The various members of the Commonwealth kept their own central banks and control of their money supply and interest rates, but they lodged their reserves with the Bank of England and tried to keep their parities as close as possible. When I described that to Delors, he said "It is close to the phase two that I want to see." I wonder whether we might take the initiative and volunteer to help in creating the second phase, which could be done without any surrender of control of our own money supply or interest rates. We could be helpful. We are the experts in this matter and it is an initiative that we could take.
Phase three commits us to a single currency and a single central bank. It is a fascinating idea, but I do not see how we could conceivably commit ourselves to it because we have no idea what Europe will look like 10 years from now. Will eastern Europe come in? There are all manner of considerations which cannot be foreseen. On the other hand, need we reject it and say that it is unacceptable because of the possible surrender of sovereignty involved? That is why I have said in the past, though nobody really understood why I said it, that I would rather be guided by the words of the hymn:
"Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me."
On the subject of hymns, there is the splendid one,
"I vow to thee, my country"
that we sing at memorial services, the first verse of which is a total commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom and its interests, and the second a noble

525
obeisance to a distant kingdom of which we have heard but never seen. So we might abstain from committing ourselves, but also abstain from rejecting the concept.
We must look at the European picture as it is. At present, all the countries concerned are not being drawn into Brussels but are being pulled in other directions. We have our own immense overseas interests. So have the French, in north and tropical Africa. The Spaniards and Portuguese also have big overseas commitments. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Spaniards have a horrible problem just now in that they have always allowed free immigration from Latin America. Will they be allowed to continue doing that? It would mean the free immigration of Latinos to all the European countries.
The Germans have the Drang nach Osten—they are fascinated by what is happening in the east. I would not exaggerate the importance of the Germans' move to reunification because the east represents only 6 or 7 per cent. of their overseas trade, but they dominate the European monetary system. If we are not in it, they will dominate it. Even if we go in, they will be very important.
I do not know which way the French will go, whether it will be Vichy or Free France. When I put that to M. Delors, he said, "If you come in, you will dilute the German influence, and we would not be against that."
I recall—this is pertinent and conclusive—that I once asked Winston Churchill how we were to reconcile our interests in the Commonwealth, which still existed, with our membership of Europe. He said, "It will not be easy on the other hand, we must have a united Europe if there is not to be another Franco-German war and if we are to keep the Germans in the Community." And then he said, "A Europe united without us could be a Europe united against us."
6.37 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: It is pleasing to me, as one who has taken part in these European debates for a long time, to see the sudden degree of interest that has been aroused. There was a time when I almost felt inclined to cross the Floor and put my arm around the shoulder of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and comfort him in his loneliness.
Things have changed, and it is evident that the Government are well capable of generating a lively debate without even having an Opposition. We have the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who may catch Mr. Speaker's eye and speak in the debate and who has been talking about the Prime Minister's blind attitude to Europe. The Sunday Times quoted him as having referred to the famous fable about the hare and the tortoise. He pointed out that the tortoise won only because the hare stopped running, and he added:
"There is no conceivable prospect that the German, French, Italian, Spanish or any other hares are going to stop every few years to allow a tortoise wrapped in a Union Jack to lumber past."
That is strong stuff, and I agree with it.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is sadly not with us, said that the Prime Minister's views were absolute rubbish. That was not, perhaps, the most delicately intellectual comment he could have made, but it was pretty direct. Then, Sir Henry Plumb —[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Plumb".] Lord Plumb, I beg his
526
pardon. One forgets all these ennoblements because they come so quickly one upon the other. Lord Plumb was the leader of the Conservative group in the Strasbourg European Parliament. The Independent, on 10 May, said of Lord Plumb:
"While never naming her,"
I hardly need to say who "her" is—
"Lord Plumb will criticise almost every element of Mrs. Thatcher's Bruges campaign, reserving particular poison for the suggestion that Brussels is wilfully creating unnecessary red tape. 'The creation of common rules for a common market … will eliminate the pettiness of certain forms of national bureaucratic regulation. 1992 is blowing the whistle on red tape, not creating it'."
His speech also contained a clear defence of the social dimension. Therefore, there is some turmoil in the Government. The Minister began with a flourish—
Sir Anthony Meyer: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make it plain that, on that occasion, Lord Plumb, was speaking not as a Conservative, but as the president of the European Parliament. There is an important distinction.
Sir Russell Johnston: Lord Plumb is the president of the European Parliament, but people do not undergo sea changes of personality when they take on different occupations, tasks and jobs. He is a Conservative. He is a decent chap, but a Conservative.
The Minister began with a great flourish, and went on the attack. I suppose that she was anticipating that others might do likewise. She spoke of the Conservative record in the 1960s, and denigrated the Labour party. I remember the 1960s quite well and the Conservative record in Europe at that time was not so startling.
The Liberal party was the first party to call for entry into the Community. At this election, the Social and Liberal Democrat party is the only one that is committed to both the Single European Act and the freedom that it will generate, and to the kind of social, economic and environmental policies that must necessarily accompany it. We also look forward to further constitutional development.
At the beginning of this debate, much emphasis was placed on scrutiny. We are, after all, gathered to discuss developments that took place in the European Community between July and December of last year. One might say that it is a waste of time because all the water has gone under the bridge. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has temporarily left us, commented on this subject. If we are talking about scrutiny, we must talk about the European Parliament. There is no way in which this House can effectively scrutinise European legislation.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Nonsense.
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Lady may say nonsense as much as she likes. That is my considered view. If, however, we talk about making a pre-legislative contribution to what is being put together, that is another question. As a legislative Chamber, we have made very little progress in pre-legislative discussions, although to a degree the Select Committees are carrying out that type of work. If hon. Members are seriously concerned about the fact that they are unable to make a proper contribution to the evolution of European Community policy, the only

527
effective action will be pre-legislative, so that input can be made which can subsequently be considered and examined. That is the only way forward.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield went on quite a bit about that, and about Crown prerogative and the fact that when the Government negotiate changes they do so as a Government. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) also joined in. The Labour party is in no position to criticise this aspect. It is precisely what the Labour party want. The derogation that the British Labour party made from the section of the European Socialist manifesto entitled "A People's Europe" is not about having a more supranationality, but about safeguarding the inter-relationship between sovereign states. In my humble opinion, the Labour party is not in a position to criticise the Government, much as it may want to.
Many hon. Members wish to speak and time is limited, so I shall confine myself to a limited number of issues. The Minister mentioned regional policy. The Heads of Government of the Community have consistently held the view that the common internal market must be accompanied by a proper regional policy. If it is not, we risk strong growth in the inner regions of the Community and depression in the outer areas, such as Scotland, the north-east and Wales, and other fringe areas in the Mediterranean, as activities pull towards the centre. That is why I make no apology for repeating a quote made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a central individual within the Government. After his recent Chatham House speech he said:
"The growth of regional policy"
—within the Community—
"would be positively damaging."
That was an extraordinary statement and very much a free market statement. The other day, at Scottish Question Time, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he agreed with it. He smiled seraphically and said that he did not. I would like a Minister to clarify the Government's view on regional policy in this debate. While I am at it, I might say to the Minister, who looks slightly sad—
Mrs. Chalker: I am not sad.
Sir Russell Johnston: It is about time we stopped blowing trumpets about the amount of regional money we receive, while ignoring the additionality rule. That money does not provide extra funds for the deprived areas but is simply an exchange that occurs within the British budget.
Reading the White Paper, one could easily gain the impression that the Government are fully content with developments in the Community. However, the six-month period that we are talking about contains the famous Bruges speech in which the Prime Minister put her backing firmly in favour of an unregulated free market throughout Europe and showed a great lack of enthusiasm for social, regional and environmental policies—social engineering is the phrase which is increasingly being used. We firmly believe that unbridled competition must be tempered. There are matters in the social sphere that the market, good as it may be at generating economic activity, will never undertake unless it is made to.
The Prime Minister is once again on the warpath, shooting from the hip at a variety of almost unexpected targets. I shall consider one or two. First, there were plans for a common card for the over-60s to enable them to
528
benefit from concessions on public transport and other facilities. It was a sort of glorified European bus pass. The initiative for that came, strangely enough, not from the Commission, from the strange, wicked bureaucrats in Brussels, but from Eurolink Age, an organization representing the interests of older people throughout the European Community which was set up by Age Concern. The project was probably the brain child of Age Concern's director, Sally Greengross.
A letter of 7 December 1987 to the Secretary of State for Social Services, from the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who are officers of the all-party parliamenary group for pensioners, stated:
"We write … to express our support to European initiatives which were discussed …
Consideration is being given to marking a European year by the launch of a European Seniors' Pass … We believe that this … would benefit many individual elderly people across the European Community. We therefore hope that you will feel able to join us in supporting these initiatives."
Why not? I do not understand all this talk of interference.
I do not want to go on about cigarettes but, like all smokers—I know I should not be one—I look around for the least injurious cigarettes which will not kill me the day after tomorrow. In the Federal Republic and in France the nicotine and tar contents are printed on the packet. Instead of bearing the legend "low tar" the packets tell me exactly how low. What is the objection to that? The Secretary of State for Health should be wholly in favour of it.
I am told that we are to veto the Lingua teaching scheme at the Council on Monday, but I do not know whether that is true. The Association of Teachers of German wrote to The Independent to say that its members thought it
"particularly galling"
that the Prime Minister intends
"to deny the opportunity of cultural and linguistic exchange".
Mr. Alan Jones and Miss Margaret Tumber continued:
"One can only hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that"
perhaps the Government have their own plans
"to match the intention of Lingua in encouraging and funding pupil and teacher exchange, in providing grants for employers to enable them to improve the language skills of their workforce, and in facilitating exchanges between universities, polytechnics and other institutions of higher and further education."
One would imagine that this country had a splendid record of speaking foreign languages—it has not. I see no earthly reason why we should not participate in a programme to deal with that problem.
Mr. Butterfill: In his enthusiasm for all things contained in the treaty, will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm that the Liberal party remains committed to the principles of the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular to article 1, which reads:
"creating the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries"?
If so, will he explain its attitude to Hinkley Point?
Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that nuclear energy and language teaching are closely aligned, and I must press on.

529
Language is the most important aspect in free movement. If people cannot speak other people's languages it is difficult for them to move and work freely in different environments.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister increasingly sets her face against free movement, which is an intrinsic part of the Single European Act. The hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned the splendid interview that the Prime Minister gave to the Daily Mail, headed
"Why I am the best European of all".
I read it rather sleepily this morning and thought at first that the interview had been given by Ted, but I was wrong. The Prime Minister said that we shall continue to need customs posts, immigration controls and all the rest of the barriers that the Single European Act was intended to do away with:
"How are you going to stop anyone from Bangladesh … coming for a holiday in Greece … right across all borders, no controls, and settling in Britain and we would have no means of finding out? Now, in France you have to carry an identity card, and you have to carry it everywhere so that police can challenge you anywhere … As I said in my Bruges speech, we are practical. They have identity cards, but can you imagine compulsory identity cards in this country? We recoil from it."
So what about football identity cards? What is the difference? In different ways we all have to prove that we are who we are by means of various forms of documentation, and the idea that identity cards are a dreadful intrusion on freedom is utter nonsense.
A couple of points about European monetary union. The Delors committee report was the most important happening of the past six months. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) described a conversation he had with M. Delors and gently criticised the Chancellor for reacting rather quickly to it. The Chancellor said, as reported in The Independent:
"Our view of the Community is one of independent sovereign nation states. We cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty which is implied"
in the Delors proposals.
"Economic and monetary union 'would in effect require political union and a United states of Europe' which was 'not on the agenda for now, or for the foreseeable future'."
But it is on the agenda now and it will stay on it.
The right hon. Member for Pavilion said that we should not start arguing about the precise form of a federal or confederal Europe, but there will be an increasingly supranational structure of some sort. It is unavoidable and, in my opinion, desirable, necessary and practical. The argument about sovereignty is based on a myth and is a means in practice of clinging to nationalistic rights which are becoming less and less meaningful in the European Community. To advance the Community, we must go beyond 1992 towards economic and monetary union, and that is the logic of the Delors proposals.
Yesterday's publication of the European social charter, although not strictly speaking under consideration in this White Paper, has already been mentioned. It is early to start being specific about it, but it lays down a number of fundamental social rights which should be exerciseable by citizens throughout the Community. It is not only a charter of workers' rights; it contains various social rights—the rights of women, pensioners and people outside the labour market—and we shall need common rules of that sort.
530
Common standards and entitlements are an inescapable part of the future of the Community, enshrining not only the right to make money but the right to social protection. My party and I are committed to the social aspects of the Community, and I hope that the Government will review the sort of approach that they have hitherto adopted.
6.58 pm
Mr. Michael Heseltine: The word "sovereignty" has rightly come up in the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members because it is at the heart of the matter. I start my three brief points in a simple belief that is widely shared. If a country has the power to exercise sovereignty on a national scale, it is appropriate and desirable that it should do so—appropriate not only in the sense of national pride, but because the more local and immediate they are, the more effective the controls over that power are likely to be.
However, if in the world in which we live sovereignty is no longer capable of being exercised on a national scale because the scale of power that is necessary in the modern world has outstripped the capacity of a medium-sized nation to control it, then in the pursuit of the sovereignty of the nation Governments have a responsibility to seek to recover the power through partnerships of sovereignty that may embrace wider groupings of sovereign independent nations. That is why this country, against its instincts, traditions and much of its history, reluctantly concluded in the 1950s and 1960s that it belonged within the European Community of nations. We wished to recover a sense of national sovereignty, albeit a national sovereignty shared with other nations similar to ourselves. We could no longer exercise sovereignty on a national scale within a community of Europe, so in the pursuit of British self-interest we made that decision.
I am not in any way in favour of some anonymous, ill-defined remote concept of supra-European existence. I am interested in Europe because I see in the arrangements of Europe and in the power structure of Europe a way in which British self-interest can be exercised within a power that is more relevant to the world in which we live and in which increasingly our children will live. With all my privileged experience as a Minister in Conservative Governments, I have not known of one German, Frenchman, Italian or Greek who has any other interpretation of why those countries are members of the European Community. They see a wider sovereignty shared as a better prospect for them than the illusions of yesterday's sovereignty hung on to for too long. That is why we are together. If it ever ceases to be the case that the members of the European Community perceive their self-interest no longer to be bound up with the European process, the Europe about which we are talking today will cease to exist. There will be nothing new historically in that. Pan-European movements in the past have come to an end. If we cannot identify a personal or national self-interest, our pan-European process will come to an end—and so it should.
My second point starts with the Single European Act, which this Parliament was the first to ratify in 1986. Let us be under no illusion—Britain did not want to sign the Single European Act. We took the classic British role in believing that events would unfold and that the market would speak. The only reason that we signed the Single

531
European Act was that the other 11 members of the Community—fewer at that time—decided that they would go on with a structural advance in the relationships of Europe and, if we did not want to be part of it, that was our sovereign right so to determine. We had made that judgment before. They knew that, every time we exercised that sovereign right to stay behind, it was only a matter of time before we reassessed the position and sought to catch up, but then we would join arrangements that they had moulded in their interests and not in ours.
Once the House had signed the Single European Act in the pursuit of the single European market, we had accepted the reinstatement of the process of majority voting. [Interruption.] It was built into the original treaty of Rome, but was frustrated by de Gaulle in the Luxembourg compromise. It was to get back to the intention to create a single market that the Luxembourg Council of Ministers determined to enact again, and it changed the treaty in order to achieve the legislative process of majority voting.
Once any of us are involved in a process of majority voting, there is only one way to win—by persuasion. We must have the better arguments, we must win the electoral debate, we must persuade other partners in the venture, any one of which has the same right to hold up his hand in dissent. Once we recognise that, we will realise that not only must we have arguments that will persuade the constituency of our European colleagues, but that we have another constituency to persuade. If the purpose of the single market is to widen the horizons and opportunities for British commerce and industry, who will determine whether we win or fail? It will not be the Government or Members of the House—it will be the industrial managers of our companies, who believe that there is something to go for, who understand the opportunity and who commit their companies to the exploitation of that opportunity. If in the process of winning politically in the European debate we create an atmosphere of incredibility and disbelief about what Europe is about, not only will we alienate the very political constituency that must determine with us the rate of progress politically, but we will detach the British industrial and commercial management from the venture.
If we have not persuaded the industrialists to gear up to the process that is under way, we shall pay a devastating price in the 1990s. I am second to none in admiring what my noble Friend Lord Young has done to create awareness of the effects of 1992 across the country. Few people employed in our wealth-creating process do not know that the single market is coming, but if asked what they are doing about it, the Government's success in creating awareness is directly reversed by the attitudes of British industry, which today by some nine to one are still failing to make the adjustments on which success in the market place will ultimately depend. As politicians, it is incumbent upon us so to temper the language that we use in winning the intellectual debate in Europe as to maintain the enthusiasm of the industrialists upon whom our future depends. Thus is the task interwoven.
Although I understand all too clearly the principle upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health went to Brussels to win or lose the issue about health warnings on cigarettes, I wonder whether he would not have been wiser to hold his fire for the battle about the social arrangements for Europe, which really matter. If we are seen to fight on every battle ground, with the same
532
wooden arguments and the same apparently obstructionist approach, we shall switch off the potential support of the very people on whom we shall depend. I believe that we must fight to prevent the more excessive elements of the social charter. It would be a disaster to try to impose mandatory workers on the boards of British industry. Let us fight on that ground, with all the intellectual conviction that we shall rightly need. Why do not the Government, who have done so much to widen share ownership in Britain, try to put into the social charter of Europe provisions to extend the share-owning democracy among Europeans? Why do we not take the best British ideas and put them on the European agenda rather than cavilling at the worst ideas of Europe and refusing to have them here?
It is important that we understand the changing definition of sovereignty. If one changes the definition of sovereignty, power moves from old concentrations to new, which is a source of resentment. How could it be otherwise? We are at the heart of that dilemma because power is moving from this place, which causes a growing and legitimate concern.
Mr. Aitken: Parliamentary sovereignty does not need to move.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend says that it does riot need to move, which rightly questions the whole European process, and I respect his position. History may prove him right. The endeavour may founder as it has foundered before, but so long as it has not foundered, so long as we are in it, and so long as our treaties commit us to it, the only way to protect British self-interest is to be at the leading edge of what is happening. We therefore come back to the transfer of sovereignty that is built into the process, not because anyone forced it on us, but because we signed treaties unleashing a profound reassessment of how British influence will be dealt with and administered in the world of tomorrow.
Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way.
There are two areas in which that sovereignty might be moving away towards the European concept. The first relates to Governments and the second to Parliament, and I wish to make a clear distinction between the two. I have been a member of a Government and I have had some experience of dealing in Europe, and I have a clear memory of the endless submissions that come up from civil servants asking for guidance about how they should handle the private and secret negotiations in Europe.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must now bring his remarks to a close.
Mr. Heseltine: Governments know what is going on, but this House does not. The question that we must have before us is how to bring power back here. That is the debate that must continue, and that is the way to consolidate the advance of Europe politically with the democratic accountability in which we all believe.
7.10 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is right to say that sovereignty is at the heart of the matter. Those

533
who are not prepared to address that question are not taking part in the great debate that has continued in this country since the mid-1950s.
If I was to accept the right hon. Gentleman's definition of worthwhile sovereignty—a kind of power of control over virtually all the factors that influence one's national life—I would still believe that no country has ever enjoyed such sovereignty. To abandon one's Parliament and one's democracy is implicit in the abandonment of national sovereignty. The alternative way pursued by the world community for more than 50 years is to forge, through alliances and treaties, all kinds of agreements and regulations affecting the conduct of affairs. Those agreements, by their very nature, are limited and, at the right time and if circumstances change, one can withdraw from or extend them.
A different path is open to us. The idea that we have no choice except to become submerged in some quasi-federal union in Europe or be left with our small catchment area of sovereignty is absurd. The alternative is the entire system of international relations developed during the past 50 years or more.
The Minister of State started the argument about scrutiny. I agree that we are not doing anything like enough in this House to scrutinise the legislation and the other proposals and directives issued from Brussels. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was right, however, to say that at least in one area of the Single European Act the only scrutiny that can lead to worthwhile action is that undertaken in the European Parliament. He is right, because that relates precisely to those areas of the Act where we have abandoned the right of veto over the proposals put before the Council of Ministers.
In those cases where there is no alternative but qualified majority voting, or where matters are decided by the so-called "co-operation procedure" of the European Parliament, no proper accountability is left to the Westminster Parliament. Such European scrutiny relates to those changes that were made in the Single European Act that deliberately removed the power of veto from the Council of Ministers. Scrutiny where there is no accountability is interesting; but it is not exactly what Parliament is about. Such scrutiny is not about the accountability of Ministers or about accountability for decisions to the people and to Parliament.
I shall make a short contribution, as I fall within the ten-minutes rule. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned some of the economic facts that are so salient to discussions of the single European market and our attitude to them. Tucked away in appendix G is the appalling table of Britain's balance of trade in manufactured goods with the European Community. That deficit has risen from £1.2 billion in 1980 to more than £12 billion in 1988. That is a terrible affliction upon the British economy and upon the prosperity of the British people.
That deficit with the Community presently accounts for nearly the entire appalling deficit in overseas trade in our current account. Therefore, it matters enormously that we should start thinking carefully abut the effects of going forward to the even greater competitive system that is
534
embodied in the single European market to be established by 1992. It also greatly affects the powers of national Governments to influence their economies.
Public purchasing power, which has been one of the most useful tools for the encouragement and development of important industries and enterprise in our country, is no longer to be a matter for the nation state to decide. There will be a register of state rights and the subsidies and other subventions, direct or indirect, made by states will be limited if not abolished by the Single European Act. The important question of monopolies and mergers policy will no longer be a national responsibility, but will be transferred to the Community, which has a great interest in cross-frontier mergers.
The arrangements I have described are part of the 1992 single market and of the Single European Act. Such arrangements are to be decided not by the Council of Ministers, on which we have a veto, but by qualified majority voting. Therefore, if the single European market is established, powers governing public purchasing, monopolies and mergers and the like will no longer be available to the British Government.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) spoke about Britain joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. The downside of that, of course, is that, if we join, we then lose virtually all control over our exchange rate and interest rate policies. In the news yesterday, we heard of the pressures upon us from Brussels for the harmonisation of VAT. Of course we have some reservations about that, but does anyone here doubt that future Governments will be allowed to retain the power to decide indirect taxation—VAT, customs and excise duty or company taxation—given the momentum of change in the next few years? That will happen unless a halt is called to these changes.
The Single European Act and the thrust of policy in the European Community today pose real dangers to us. The Prime Minister has a lot of explaining to do as the principal sponsor of the Single European Act. I must say that she makes a bogeyman out of Mr. Delors. Conservative Members are obviously much troubled by qualified majority voting; they fear it greatly. Such voting, however, does not apply in the social area, which is specifically exempted under article 100A2 of the revised European treaty. All matters relating to trade union legislation and social policy will be kept within the old rules of unanimity voting by the Council of Ministers and subject to the national veto.
The one exception, in article 118A, relates to measures affecting health and safety. On an odd day last summer, that may have made the Trades Union Congress delirious, but it does not make me particularly enthusiastic about what is gained from the European single market of 1992.
We shall have to make a choice about the kind of Europe we want. It is not improper for people to wish to see an end to national Parliaments and nation states. That is their privilege. However, we are on the road towards national oblivion and the destruction and dissolution of our own democracy. We may create in Europe equivalent institutions, but the power to decide our own policies in our own elected Parliament—a power that used to reside in our own people—is on the way out, and unless we are very careful, it will disappear.
7.20 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: This is a critical debate on the future of the European Community. A debate on the issue is long overdue and it ought to be properly addressed. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the debate to range slightly wider than the official title of the motion—developments in the Community during the last six months of 1988. You have the right to call any of us to order, but the problem is that the House has regularly debated European Community problems after the event instead of debating the essential question of what will happen in the near future and the big issues that will arise from the Madrid summit. Moreover, there has not yet been a debate on the Delors report.
Mr. Spearing: But there will be.
Mr. Taylor: It is intriguing that we have yet to have a debate on the social charter, although the timing of its announcement has been known for some months.
The shift in pace of Community progress has resulted from the passing of the Single European Act. There is no point in fudging that statement. It was because it was known that a shift in the pace of the Community was needed that from the Stuttgart declaration—to which the Government were enthusiastic adherents—onwards we, along with our European partners, made an effort to bring the Single European Act into existence. There is an important but subtle statement on page 1, the preamble to the Single European Act. It says that as a result of the Single European Act the signatories were
"Determined to improve the economic and social situation by extending common policies and pursuing new objectives, and to ensure a smoother functioning of the Communities by enabling the Institutions to exercise their powers under conditions most in keeping with Community interests."
I stress the words "Community interests".
Individual Members of this House may or may not be pleased that that is what it says. It was decided that in order to advance Community interests there would be a system of majority voting. The Single European Act made it clear that majority voting would be principally to enact the single market programme, but the Act as a whole also makes clear undertakings in other areas and has chapter headings such as
"Co-operation in Economic and Monetary policy (Economic and Monetary Union)"
and
"Economic and Social Cohesion."
We therefore should have addressed those matters in 1987 when the Single European Act was passed.
I am hostile to many aspects of the social charter. They would do grave damage to this country. My point is that we have known since 1987 that a social charter was under discussion, but all that we decided to concentrate on were the economic and business aspects of the Community. We hoped that any other aspect would go away. That has not happened, nor could it have been expected to happen.
Britain has a marvellous opportunity to convince the other EEC members that the Conservative Government have put in place a first-class social policy, particularly in relation to employment. Today's employment figures confirm that point. We now know that 6·5 per cent. only of the population is unemployed. More people are in paid employment now than have ever been. Moreover, the percentage of our population in paid employment is higher than in any other member state. That is a proud record. It
536
is the result of deregulation which, as Britain has explained to the Community, is the right way forward in so many areas. However, we have not joined in the social debate, with the result that we now cry "Foul" when our Community colleagues produce something that they have thought through and wish to adopt.
Once again, this country is at a disadvantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said—my hon. Friends know that I have a great interest in this, too—this country has developed employee share ownership. We have more shareholders—not all of them employees, admittedly—than members of trade unions. I know from my various connections that many people on the continent believe that employee share ownership is good for their business, yet it does not form part of the social charter. The House has a right to ask why that is so. The answer is that we did not enter the debate early enough.
The proof of that statement is that when we have entered other debates early enough we have, by and large, not been left alone and in the minority. I cite the Treasury team's excellent work in persuading our Community colleagues and the Commissioner that the plan that Lord Cockfield tried to foist on the Community in respect of VAT was nonsensical. He did not learn the error of his ways. It took a French Commissioner to see the error of his ways, but she did so because we positively took part in the debate. We advanced carefully argued proposals which provided the Community with an alternative point of discussion that was much more market orientated.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: But there was a veto.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend really must stop making that point about the veto. We shall not win the intellectual battles in the Community if we just wield the veto argument. The whole point is that we must persuade our Community partners. [Interruption.] Of course we could use the veto, but we should do so only in a direst emergency. We must ensure that we have the majority on our side. That is the only way in which the Community can sensibly work together. It must be by persuasion.
There are many other areas in which the force of argument has helped this country. For example, the Community is gradually moving forward in the right direction on its competition policy. I hope that the Minister will address that question in replying to the debate. The Commission is now coming forward with more reasonable proposals for competition policy. I think that we shall find that they are more acceptable. We have also persuaded the Commission to inquire into state subsidies in other EEC countries. This is critical to the development of the single market. The last figures that I have to hand show that in 1986 £65 billion was spent on state subsidies throughout the Community—three times the whole of the Community's budget.
We do not need to say that we are at the mercy of a marauding bureaucracy in Brussels when we have won the argument. If we want a deregulated Community—which I do—we have to regulate to deregulate. It will not surprise any member of this Parliament that there are occasions in the House when we have to examine Government regulations which are to apply to this country. It is not surprising that at Commission level regulations should come forward to open up the markets. It is in this country's interests that the regulations that most directly

537
affect our interests should be the toughest possible. It ill behoves us constantly to appear to be denigrating the Commission, which is the servant of the Council of Ministers and is trying to ensure that the Community opens up its frontiers to people, capital and business. We must address those critical problems.
In conclusion, we have an enormous opportunity. Many of us in the Tory party have been enthusiastic but not uncriticial Europeans for many years. We must not lose this opportunity by not realising that we can take a lead in these matters. Our arguments are convincing, but we must participate in the debate in a way which gains friends and influence instead of losing them. We must not go to the Madrid summit firing on all siege guns in the blind hope of winning some last battle.
7.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Quite properly and understandably the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) addressed his remarks to his hon. Friends. We know that there is a difference of opinion in the Conservative party about the way in which it should approach Europe. I shall call it the EEC because imperceptibly we are going into Eurospeak, just as we have moved from the Common Market to the European Community, and now, conceivably, to European union.
Tonight, as before, I speak not so much as a member of a United Kingdom political party, but as a member of a party in favour of Parliament. Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He was talking not about a party advantage but of the advantage of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom for which there has been no mandate for any party to give away. Hence my intervention about a mandate for either the Stuttgart declaration or the Single European Act. I do not believe that the Government had such a mandate and I do not believe that they have it now.
On the question of Parliament and scrutiny, I speak as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, rather than personally as I did in the introduction to my speech. Our debate is unnecessarily retrospective. The Scrutiny Committee has suggested on a number of occasions that such debates should be prospective. On a six-monthly cycle it would be appropriate if they looked ahead to the succeeding six-monthly cycle of presidency, and conceivably they would take place just before the successive six-monthly summit. That would provide the opportunity for a total review of where the Community was going and what the Government of the day should do. However, the Committee would also wish there to be scrutiny of particular issues. The Delors proposal for economic and monetary union and a central bank has been mentioned. It is no secret that the Committee has already recommended that document for debate and the Government have provided an explanatory memorandum. Similarly, if it comes within our terms of reference, there should be a debate on the social charter that we have heard something about. If scrutiny is to be what it says it is, I hope that such debates will be separated from the general six-monthly debates of which this is an example.
There has been some criticism of the standard of scrutiny. We hope that we have contributed to its
538
improvement by HC421, a special report on the programme of legislation which the Commission adopted for 1988. We hope to be issuing a similar report for 1989 ere long. It contains mostly the Cockfield proposals for 1992, but not exclusively. Unless hon. Members have the report, they will not see what is en route.
I now leave the role of the Scrutiny Committee, revert to the introduction of my speech, and put on what I believe is a parliamentary hat. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is still in his place, because I wish to refer specifically to his speech. Leaving aside a certain confusion about the nature of the Luxembourg veto compromise on which I shall not spend time, many of his remarks reminded me of what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was saying in the early 1970s about the opportunity for British industry. In the White Paper that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup produced at that time, he said that the effect on Britain's manufacturing balance of trade would be positive and substantial. We all know that the effects have been negative, but substantial to the extent of £13,000 million a year. I do not believe that any prospect of economic monetary union, in which the Bundesbank would play a major part, would produce very much confidence. If that happened under the Common Market, what would happen under the single market? There has been some debate about the nature of the single market, but none as yet today about its extent.
The Single European Act has been referred to extensively, but its definition of the single market has not been quoted. Article 8A states:
"The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty."
The right hon. Member for Henley described a great vision in macro-political terms which he further expounded in his book.
Mr. Giles Radice: That is free advertising.
Mr. Spearing: The book is of great macro-political interest, but it does not go far enough.
Despite extensive inquiries, I have yet to discover the extent and scope of article 8A of the Single European Act. At what point does the jurisdiction by majority vote, which that Act ceded to the institutions of the Community, cease? I asked the Attorney-General what legislation is outside its scope, and he replied, "Criminal and family law". I put it to the right hon. Members for Henley and for Old Bexley and Sidcup that, juridically speaking, there is virtually no limit to the effective jurisdiction of European institutions under the Single European Act and under majority voting. There are limits, but those limits are well beyond what anyone believed them to be when the legislation passed through the House.
If that is the case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was absolutely right. It is not that power will go; it is going in every late-night debate where we vote away a consolidation of existing law. It is not just new law; we are building cages for future legislation of the House. Night after night the power of the House, and with it the power of the British people disappears.
There may be hon. Gentlemen who want that, but do their constitutents know it? Have they been elected here to

539
dissipate the power which put them here? They have every right to do it if they stood on such a platform on their election. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Henley did that.
In his absence, I accuse the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup of the ancient offence of praemunire—adherence to a foreign power. He was very excited on television on Sunday. I make a retrospective indictment of him of adherence to a foreign power in prospect. That prospect is no longer a prospect; it is with us night after night. Praemunire means adherence to a power away from the Crown. Of course, anything from Brussels bypasses the Crown as it is directly applicable.
The scope of the treaties to which the House and the Government are already party is bleeding the power away from the House, away from the British people in a way for which they have given no mandate and which they do not know about or understand.
7.39 pm
Mr. Ray WhitneyI: In the Nancy Mitford novels which were popular some decades ago, there was a character called Uncle Matthew who went around all the time saying, "Wogs begin at Calais." I regret that the Uncle Matthew tendency is alive and well and has been getting strong in the last few months as the debate in the nation and, I am sad to say, in our party—I might even say in the Government—has moved into a different phase. We should seriously address that. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said.
We should invite the Government to consider again the policy and the implications of what we now have to describe as the twin-track policy and ask whether we should go back to a single-track policy. There is a tendency to underrate the deep understanding acquired by the British people about the significance of the European Community. It is, of course, quite easy to be tricked by the Uncle Matthew tendency, but fundamentally the British people instinctively understand the broad issues that are at stake.
There are three basic areas in the world—north America, Japan and the Pacific basin, and western Europe —and either we believe in Europe and belong to it or we wither on the side. I am certain that our constituents are not prepared to allow us to wither on the side. They look to us to make sure that we remain in the European Community. Although they do not understand the clauses and the nuances of the Single European Act, and are, understandably, not as sensitive as we are to the sovereignty of Parliament, they understand the broad issue that is at stake. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister most certainly knows it.
I remind the House of a memorandum that the Prime Minister addressed to her colleagues in the Community. She called for
"a series of new policies to promote the economic, social and political growth"
on which the future well-being of the Community depended. She said:
"This means giving greater depth to the Community in both its internal and external activities."
She spoke of the need to create
"a genuine common market in goods and services which is envisaged in the Treaty of Rome"
but said that that could be achieved only by
"a sustained effort to remove the remaining obstacles to intra-Community trade."
540
Only by that means could we enable
"the citizens of Europe to benefit from the dynamic effects of the fully integrated common market with immense purchasing power."
In a comment on the Commission, which is a focus of attention at the moment, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that it was central to the functioning of the Community and that Europe needs to advance its internal development. One of the objectives that she enuciated was to
"heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what unites us."
We should surely remind ourselves of that once again. That memorandum by the Prime Minister to her colleagues was issued in 1984.
The only thing that has changed since 1984 is that we have come closer to the attainment of those goals I welcome that, and the Cabinet, the party and the country should welcome it. I accept the five principles set out by the Prime Minister in her Bruges speech. Sadly, it was not the principles of the Bruges speech but its impact which has given encouragement to the little England tendency and to hon. Members who for entirely legitimate reasons of their own have never accepted Britain's membership of the European Community. That is entirely their right, but it is not the judgment of the House or the nation.
It is the judgment of our party that we should not accept many of the ideas being discussed in Europe. As two of my hon. Friends have said, the way to make sure that those ideas do not prosper but our contributions do is to be in Europe, to be positive about it, and to take our ideas there. That is the only way to be sure of a resonance from those who think like us in Europe. Let us be clear that the majority of Governments in Europe are more or less of the centre-Right persuasion and they are not interested in a Socialist utopia or in pan-European federalism. They are not interested in giving up their sovereignty.
I urge my hon. Friends who have reservations to look into their heart and ask themselves whether the attitudes that they betray are not a manifestation of a lack of national self-confidence. The Mintel report published last week clearly demonstrated something that we all know instinctively—that, although the French are chauvinistic and nationalistic, they do not fear working in the Community; nor do the Germans, and nor should we. We do not need to. We must make sure that the Single European Act works. We must accept it in its entirety and fight within the Community for the things in which our party believes. If we fight outside, we shall lose, but if we fight within Europe, our interests, and therefore those of the nation, will prosper.
7.46 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I have been a convinced supporter of the European idea for many years, but I have to admit to a strong feeling of what the Germans call schadenfreude. That is because it is the Conservative party which for so long has apparently been united in Europe which now appears to be divided on the issue. It is also the Conservative party, at least in the person of the Prime Minister, which is taking a shrill and wrong headed, anti-European stance.
The attitude and antics of the Prime Minister puzzled me. As the Financial Times said in an excellent leader on 17 May, the Commission is not a great bureaucratic

541
machine. As one of my hon. Friends has said, it is somewhat smaller than most Government Departments. It is not a legislative body, but an executive body and its job is to enforce the rules, not to make them. The Financial Times also said that any decision involving a major inroad in national sovereignty has to be taken unanimously.
When decisions are taken by a majority vote, it is by virtue of the Single European Act, which the Prime Minister witnessed, if she did not actually sign, and which Parliament has endorsed. If the Prime Minister is in doubt about that, I can refer her to an excellent note prepared by the Library on the implications of the Single European Act.
As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has said, far from the Commission being a Socialist plot, both the Commissioners and the Council of Ministers have a non-Socialist majority. I do not know what the Prime Minister is up to, because clearly she must know all that. How are we to explain her rather peculiar behaviour? Partly, I suspect, it is her way of proceeding. She mistakes the Commission and the Council of Ministers for members of her Cabinet. She is so used to lecturing and hectoring and generally slagging her colleagues that when it comes to the Commission or members of other Governments she continues to behave in the same way.
I think that it is also partly due to the Prime Minister's incorrigibly insular nationalism. Instinctively, she believes that all foreigners must be in error whatever the circumstances. She grossly overestimates British power and that is probably her worst mistake of all. Her attitude is reflected in her fortress Falklands policy, in her overbearing behaviour towards Chancellor Kohl and her inappropriate references to wartime and saving the continent from Hitler. That attitude reveals a totally outdated and unrealistic estimate of Britain's position in the world.
The truth is that Britain is a medium-sized European power—no more and no less. It follows that our interests can best be pursued through co-operation, conjunction and co-ordination with our European neighbours, primarily through the European Community. We are more likely to be effective if we behave like a good neighbour and partner rather than like a blustering and petulant bully trying to punch above our weight in the world.
Europe is on the move and, because of the Government's behaviour, we risk being left behind or, even worse, being left out. Whatever the Prime Minister may say, the completion of the internal market has social implications. In a notable speech earlier this week, Lord Plumb was quite right to say that the social dimension is
"part and parcel of ensuring fair competition, especially in regard to matters such as health and safety."
There is another powerful argument which other Right-wing parties on the continent of Europe recognise, even if this Thatcherite Conservative party does not. A floor of social rights on a European level is essential if we are to ensure that all Europeans enjoy the fruits of the internal market.
There are also important economic consequences of 1992. The closer integration of trading arrangements is bound to lead to closer economic and monetary arrangements. I agree that that process is afoot. There is now a strong case for Britain to join the exchange rate
542
mechanism of the European monetary system. That would assist in achieving a more stable exchange rate and it would help secure lower interest rates and act as a very useful discipline against inflation. Equally important, it would enable the United Kingdom to get in on and influence the debate on economic and monetary union.
Whatever we think of the Delors report and its details and procedures—and we heard an interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) about that—the danger for the United Kingdom now is that, as with the formation of the Common Market in the 1950s and 1960s, this country could be left out of the key decisions that will shape Europe's future. Joining the exchange rate mechanism would at the very least ensure that the British view was represented and not ignored during this crucial period.
It is essential for British interests and for the future of Europe that we begin to play a more positive role. After the way in which the Prime Minister has behaved in recent weeks, I confess that I begin to despair of the Conservative party, although some powerful voices on the Conservative Benches are beginning to speak out. More power to their elbows and may they continue to speak out because that would make for a more interesting Parliament.
Fortunately for the country, the Labour party is now putting forward extremely constructive proposals on the future of the European Community. Because of that, I will take particular delight in supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.
7.53 pm
Mr. David Howell: We have all listened very hard to hear constructive proposals from the Labour party and tried to see the new shiny wallpaper of Labour's economic European policy. As time passes, we see less of the wallpaper and more of the rotten walls behind the policies. No doubt we shall hear more about those policies before the debate is over. I want to continue the theme of monetary union referred to by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). That issue preoccupies us and encapsulates many of the worries and issues that we are considering today.
Already it seems that the United Kingdom has been put a little on the defensive with regard to European monetary union. That is a great pity because I believe strongly that the British case on the monetary union is excellent. That case has not been put very well, but it should be put with great vigour and it is important that it is set against the more extravagant and unworkable ideas currently circulating in the Community under the label of monetary union.
The Delors report was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and others. Some of us have had a chance to consider it. I believe that it is very unsatisfactory and is not a contribution to European monetary union or greater integration of the European economies. The Delors report is a tramlines report. It is determinism. It states that we must leap on at the beginning and go right through to a goal which lies years ahead. Our practical common sense tells us that that cannot be the way forward.
I believe, however, that stage 1 of the Delors report is sensible—a lot of stage 1 is necessary to retain control of our currency—but stage 2 is technically impossible. No one has ever designed a set of central banks on a reserve

543
federal basis. Central banks cannot be operated like that. The Germans tried that system momentarily and found that it would not work. The Americans had a similar experience. A central band is a very centralised institution depending on a very few people and their very rapid decisions. Stage 2 is nonsense and stage 3 lies a considerable way ahead.
Nevertheless, stage 1 of the Delors report involves our being members of the exchange rate mechanism and the central bank governors co-operating closely together to bring stability to the currency markets. That is very sensible. It is important that we should go to Madrid to ensure that we are at the table to accept the stage 1 ideas to influence further developments in Community monetary integration. We should not allow the Delors ideas to race forward, or other proposals currently being aired for other Community members to get together to design further amendments to the treaty of Rome or even a new treaty. That would be disastrous for the momentum of western European economics, including our own. That would not be acceptable. It would be a great mistake if we went to Madrid in a negative mood and were unable to start constructive discussions on the basis of accepting the kind of ideas contained in stage 1 of the Delors report.
If we do not go to Madrid with a positive approach, we shall be excluded from the next stage of monetary developments in Europe. There is also a real danger that we shall lose complete control—sovereign control, to use this evening's language—over our currency. After next June, capital movements will be free in Europe. After 1992, banks will be free anywhere in Europe to take deposits in any currencies from any Community member. They will also be free to grant loans. There is no way of controlling our currency or influencing its supply and demand, both of which determine the price of a currency, without the pound being in some form of framework or without very close co-operation between central bank governors when the banking systems of Europe cease to be consistent and identical with the currency systems of Europe. There is no way of operating sovereign control over our currency and monetary policy if we have no framework. That concept must involve stage 1 of the Delors report.
Several hon. Members have referred to sovereignty this evening. Does stage 1 of the Delors report involve the loss of sovereignty? Yes, it does. A great deal of what is happening in the world of open trading, including the aim of the single market, the removal of tariff barriers, the rise of global financial systems and totally integrated world financial markets, must weaken states and national Governments and parties such as the former British Labour party—I am not sure whether the current Labour party holds the same view—which believe in the state as an instrument of their Socialism and idealism. That is the process that is going on. If that is not recognised, what is happening to the economic power of all national Governments has not been understood. Of course that power is being weakened. We should be open-eyed and realistic about that.
Let my hon. Friends fight the loss of sovereignty to Brussels over non-economic issues that we can handle ourselves. There is plenty of nonsense coming from the bureaucrats in Brussels that we should resist. As a believer in a free market Europe, the open trading system and the development of a global financial system, however, I do not believe that we can fight the transfer of sovereignty from national state Governments to consumers and
544
international markets. If my hon. Friends wish to do that, they are abandoning the motive powers of free markets in the modern world.
We should recognise that sovereignty is being transferred to consumers and to markets and that Governments are becoming weaker in the sense that they can no longer wield the kind of power that Keynes and others taught that they could wield on a national basis and somehow steer and manage their sovereign individual economies. That power is being sucked away. If we want to bring that power back and become protectionists again, or Socialist nationalists—I use those words in an unoffensive way—the protectionist isolated economy can indeed be restored. Such economies exist in the world, in miserable places such as Burma. There are still some left in eastern Europe, although they are learning the lessons. Those are countries with sovereign powers over their consumers and markets and plenty of power in the state Government as well. But the entire trend, not only of European policy but of international economic policy, is to transfer sovereignty to consumers and markets, away from the state and away, I am afraid, from national parliaments as well.
My hon. Friends and Opposition Members can fight heroically night after night to keep that power in the national parliaments, in the state Governments and in their party policies and manifestos, but it is being taken away by the decision to commit ourselves to the international open trading system—the removal of tariffs and barriers. That is where the power is going and we should not fight it. Let us fight nonsense from Brussels, but to fight the realities of a modern economic system would be to plunge us back into a dark age of protectionism and dwindling prosperity, which all our common sense, and all who believe in a free economy, should resist.
8.2 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that capitalism in Europe is incompatible with democracy and that is one of the most candid admissions that I have heard. I hope that his speech will be studied because he was saying that the House of Commons and the ballot box is no route to justice, to development or anything.
This is not about sovereignty. No nation in the world is sovereign. The United States could be destroyed by a bomb from anywhere. We could be polluted from anywhere. We are talking about democracy—the right of people to shape their future by using the ballot box to make the laws under which they are governed. Democracy and sovereignty are not the same thing. The United States, the most powerful country in the world, has democracy, but it does not have sovereignty. It cannot protect itself from what happens in Tehran or somewhere else. At least we have had a candid expression of the real choice.
This interesting debate could, at least, be useful to the electors on 14 June in clarifying the issues and the choices. People have not yet appreciated the enormity of the change that has occurred. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession under prerogative powers without publishing it, he gave away the rights of the electors to govern this country. When Parliament agreed the European Communities Act 1972, it confirmed it. When the referendum was put before the people, all the party leaders

545
—the present Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister Sir Harold Wilson, and Jeremy Thorpe—united in a coalition to tell people that Europe would be good for Britain. When the Single European Act was signed without consulting the electors, that was consolidated. I am sad —I say this with deep regret—that the Labour party, of which I am a member, should have abandoned its basic belief that people can change their future through the ballot box. As the right hon. Member for Guildford said, the ballot box cannot be used to change the future when power is handed to markets and, as he laughingly said, to consumers.
This is an interesting debate because the implications of those massive changes are coming home. They are taking two forms. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who will no doubt speak, wants an independent Scotland within the Common Market. The Prime Minister wants an independent United Kingdom within the Common Market. Those Tory Members who joined in the praise for Europe want to see a more federal Europe. But the reality is that they all agree about one thing. I hope that those who read Hansard or listen to the debate never misunderstand that.
Let me go through some constituencies. The right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), Old Bexley and Sidcup, for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Member for Govan all believe that power has gone permanently from the House and can never be recovered. They may disagree about this and that, but they are united on that. The Opposition Front Bench is united with the Government Front Bench in the belief that those powers can never be returned and should not be asked for. That is the reality against which the debate takes place.
The consequences of that are worth a moment or two of discussion. I speak as a former Minister who was in the Council of Ministers for five years, as was the right hon. Member for Guildford. I was president of the Energy Council in 1977. As a Minister there I was a member of a legislative body meeting in secret. The Council of Ministers may sound like a Cabinet, but it is a legislative body. I proposed that the Council of Ministers should meet in public, but it would not accept that. We have Hansard and allow people to hear our debates, but the Ministers there did not want their constituents to know what bargains they were making with other countries. It is done by prerogative.
As I mentioned in an intervention, the only power that a British Minister has in Brussels is the power of treaty making deriving from the Crown. That is why the word scrutiny is meaningless. It would be more accurate to say that we are spectators of our fate. If it was said that at Wimbledon there are a lot of scrutineers of the game of tennis, that would be right because they would be watching, not playing. We are watching our fate being shaped, not participating in it.
The Bill of Rights was overturned when we joined the Common Market. It says that no court can interfere with Parliament. But now the courts have the right to supervise the legality of legislation that we pass according to some other criteria. In the process, I honestly believe that the franchise has been destroyed.
546
Let me try to make the point, which, in a strange way, is not political. If, under a Labour Government, there was a run on the pound and exchange controls were introduced, the courts would say that that was illegal. Civil servants would say, "I am sorry, Minister"—as they said to me in minor cases—"what you are doing is illegal." There would be a constitutional crisis at the heart of Government that could not be resolved.
Before Conservative Members laugh, let me say that that is one reason why they favour the Common Market —to prevent Socialism. But if the Labour party were in office now and we agreed to a mass of EEC social legislation, a Tory Government could not change it when they came to power. If it were a Labour Government looking at Jacques Delors' proposals—not that I have a lot of time for them—and if we stiffened and strengthened them so that an incoming Conservative Government could do nothing about the unions because free movement of capital and labour means a commonality of view across the Community, a subsequent Conservative Government could do nothing. If they tried, the trade unions could take them to court. The court would say that the Government may have been elected with a landslide majority, but they could not do what they want.
Nobody in this debate has addressed the fact that Community legislation cannot be repealed. It may be that it cannot be passed without unanimity, but it cannot be repealed without unanimity either. It is like a lobster pot —easy to get into, but difficult to get out of.
I sincerely believe that when the British people discover that the Government that they elect are confined by the decisions of the previous Government, agreed in the Council of Ministers, they will either take to despair, or to violence, or revert to the most awful nationalism of the kind that the Prime Minister and, I fear, the hon. Member for Govan espouse—the idea that somehow it is the foreigners that are the trouble. The trouble is caused not by foreigners but by the structure basically being undemocratic because it cannot be changed through the ballot box.
There are many ways of looking at Europe for those who are called little Englanders. There are lots of internationalisms apart from that of frère Jacques Delors, who is so beloved of the Trades Union Congress because he treats it with more respect than the TUC receives from No. 10. The TUC never gets invited to tea at No. 10 these days, but it is invited to three-course lunches in Brussels because M. Delors needs the TUC. Socialism was never brought about at the top. No progress ever came from the top, because top people always have a vested interest in the status quo. Social advance always comes from underneath. Look at China and what is happening in Poland. It was not that the central committee in Beijing or in Warsaw decided to change but that the pressure for change was there. Take away the legitimacy of that pressure and the capacity to channel it through the ballot box, and there will be trouble.
Some people favour a fully federal Europe. I can understand why. We would all have a vote and elect a president and two Houses. It would be fully an American system. But I favour a commonwealth of Europe—an association of fully self-governing states that would harmonise as quickly as it could, where it mattered, but in which no majority would have the power to push legislation through against the wishes of others.

547
The successive Parliaments in which I have sat for many years have abandoned not their own rights, because we had none, but the rights of those people who sent us here. When that is learnt, it will not be 1 million people in Tiananmen square but 1 million people in Parliament square who will remind us that we are their servants and they are not pawns in our game, to be given away in the pursuit of market forces or some European dream from Henley or somewhere else. That is the issue which the House must face.
The Labour party does not want to face it because it is embarrassing. The Conservatives do not want to face it because to do so would reveal what they have done. However, one day the people will face it, and that will be uncomfortable. Democracy cannot be denied by any amount of lecturing about Adam Smith and the rest. Democracy is the desire of the people to govern themselves, and that cannot be extinguished by any number of Acts or treaties signed by the Conservative party.
8.12 pm
Sir Richard Body: This is the second time that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have called me immediately after a speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Benn); and for the second time I must embarrass him by admitting that I find myself more in agreement with him than perhaps I ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman is right to question the meaning of the word "sovereign", which has been used so often in the debate.
One wonders what the countries of Europe outside the Community, which are in the majority, think about the word "sovereign". I believe that they would point to the United Nations and say that most of its 159 member countries won a place in it by showing that they had achieved self-determination and had ceased to be subordinate to a colonial power. The broad test of admission to the United Nations is being a self-determining state—the ability to make one's own laws, to have those laws interpreted in one's own country, to make one's own treaties, and to impose one's own taxation. Those are the four elements of sovereignty as defined by constitutional lawyers.
Sovereignty is not the same as the notions expressed in the notable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). No country is now sovereign by his definition. One sighs when so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends denounce others of us for being anti-Europe. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that Britain has for a long time been part of Europe, both geographically and historically.
How are we to work with our neighbouring countries? The route we have chosen is shared with a minority of other European countries, which is to go the super-national way; to turn our backs on the elements of a sovereign nation state and to submit to the super-national approach leading to what is called a deep Europe. That confronts Europeans—and I hope that we are all Europeans—with a great dilemma.
The argument for European co-operation in the future will be not economic but environmental. To speak of only 12 European countries as Europe and to act only within that little Europe is futile. How can we cope with the fearful pollution of the North sea, for example, if we
548
cannot work with the other countries that adjoin it—Scandinavia, the Baltic states, and Switzerland, which plays its part in polluting the North sea through the Rhine?
We must find a method of widening Europe, for it is a wider Europe we need—not a super-national but an international Europe, whose countries recognise that there are different circles of interest, and not a single circle of interest, encompassing all 35 of them, let alone a circle of interest limited to only 12. There are several circles of interest demanding international co-operation, and the countries within those circles should work together to achieve more than they could individually.
The question must be asked, what is the best route for achieving that? When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield speaks of a commonwealth of Europe, must go along with him. We already have the Economic Commission for Europe comprising 35 countries, which for the past 40 years has brought down no end of non-tariff barriers and accomplished environmental achievements long before most of us started talking about the environment. That is the kind of Europe—a wider Europe —that we should have. However, we cannot have a wider Europe if we are to create a deep Europe. Countries outside the Community will recoil from losing their statehood, or whatever term one uses, and their self-determination, and sinking them into the European Community.
The dilemma that we face in Europe is that we go along either the deep Europe route or the wider Europe route. There can be no mixture of the two. Sadly, we are now going down the deep Europe route, which will frustrate and foil our efforts to achieve that which we ought to be achieving in Europe in terms of the environment, trade and many other matters. They include the European patent system. What a non-tariff barrier is the patent. One can register a patent in London today and it can take effect in Stockholm and in other countries of Europe outside the Common Market. That has been achieved through the ECE. That is the kind of thing that we ought to do in bringing down the barriers that exist outside the Community, while at the same time ensuring that people feel that they can still determine their own policies and own Governments, and can ensure some sense of democracy. We shall not achieve that if we go along the deep Europe route.
8.20 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I rise in my place to perform a rather unusual task and that is vigorously to defend our Prime Minister. This may be the first time and it is probably the last time that I shall do any such thing, but I feel that she has been grossly misunderstood and, indeed, misrepresented. How could a woman of her status not know what she is doing? In Europe I spend a great deal of my time explaining to people that it is not correct that our Prime Minister does not understand the implications of being a European. After all, as I point out, it was she who pushed through the Single European Act and voted for it. I did not vote for it, but the Prime Minister voted for it. Who put the Whips on the Conservative majority? I did not do that—the Prime Minister did it. Who was it who insisted that this should be pushed through in a very short time on a guillotined motion, against the feeling of most Members of this

549
Parliament that it needed to be debated in considerable detail? That was not I—it was the Prime Minister. I believe, therefore, that she is badly misunderstood when she is represented as not being a very good European.
All sorts of interesting things can happen, however. I am away from the House for two weeks with a Select Committee and return to find that the Common Market question has undergone an extraordinary sea change. Can this be the organisation of bureaucrats in which preferment is not by ability but only by nationality and which, I am told, is a hot-bed of Socialism? I really do not recognise it. Those of us who have had to do with it over a great many years are hardly likely to accept that description. What is important and should be confirmed time and again is that the present Conservative party has got itself into an extraordinary situation precisely because it has never been prepared to consider the way in which the House of Commons deals with European legislation.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) say that sovereignty was the arrangement whereby a group of nations got together to decide what they would do. It is an interesting use of the English language if not an accurate one. I believe that what we ought to be doing here is something rather different. The House of Commons has machinery which would enable it at every point to have an input into European legislation. It has a series of Select Committees which currently match individual subjects—Select Committees which occasionally, but not very often, look briefly at individual directives or regulations but never at the point at which they could have an influence on the decisions taken.
If that is the situation, the Prime Minister could make a very simple, practical gesture to prove to us all not only that she is fully European but that she understands the implications for a democratic state of the changes incorporated in the Single European Act. She could come to the House before the summer recess, because she is a practical woman and likes to do things with rapidity and to take charge on her own, and say that in future she would like all the Select Committees to look at a very early stage at all suggestions emanating from the Commission.
It is the Commission, whether or not its members are described as bureaucrats, which can initiate legislation. Many European parliamentarians have the right to comment but not to decide, so it is not true that there is any kind of democratic control over what happens. To call the members of the Commission civil servants is a slight misnomer when so many of them are not only directly appointed by their own nation states but have it made very clear to them that the responsibility for decision-making purposes still resides in the Quai D'Orsay, in Bonn, in Madrid—wherever their own future lies. If hon. Members do not believe me, I can only say that they have not discussed this matter very frequently, as I have, with many European civil servants over the years.
Thomas More had one of his narrators in "Utopia" say that intelligent human beings who trusted one another had no need of treaties because if they trusted one another they would never do anything to injure one another's interests. If, on the other hand, they believed that they had to sign treaties because that degree of faith did not exist, that meant almost by implication that they were prepared to
550
break the treaties that they had signed. I paraphrase, but it is a lesson that all politicians would do well to remember. Thomas More learnt the hard way that politics is a singularly unkind and unrewarding job.
Let us therefore accept that we have the treaty and the machinery, and the House of Commons can, if it wishes, this month take back a simple power. If we do not at any point represent the interests of our constituents in many of the directives that are being passed, these debates will become longer and longer spaced out and the amount of detail going through will be less and less scrutinised by the Mother of Parliaments. I offer one simple solution. Let us have a Select Committee of the House of Commons with representatives of every party, the sole function of which is to consider at the very earliest stage the implications of directives and make it clear to Ministers what their attitude is. The Danish Parliament does this very efficiently with a committee which can be called together at great speed and can discuss individual items. We do not do that. Even in the other place European legislation is better scrutinised than in this House, and in some instances much more efficiently.
If we do not take that course, debates in the House of Commons about what it is to be European or what it is to react to the Single European Act will be so much hot air without the understanding that it is power that decides where Europe will go. It is not an intellectual argument. The French, the Germans and the Italians do not rely on intellectual persuasion. They rely on carefully constructed coalitions of views, the giving of one benefit to receive 10 in return. The British do not understand the rules, they have never learnt the game and they are being beaten into the ground.
I offer one simple solution. Let us today send a message to the Prime Minister saying that we know that she is a European, that we are as European as she is and that we will support her if she simply brings back into our machinery all the legislation that is to be decided by majority votes and takes note of what the British say. Would not that be a remarkable innovation?
8.26 pm
Mr. David Curry: My grandparents were born when there was a British Empire and, had they so wanted, they could have governed that. My parents were born and lived their formative years at the time of the Battle of Britain. I have no doubt that for that generation the moment when the Anglo-Saxon world stood alone was the high point of their awareness of their Britishness.
For me—and this is where I nail my colours to the mast —the creation of Europe seems to be the most important task that my generation can undertake. I realise that other people have different ideals, but that is what brought me into politics and that is an ideal from which I will not resile. It is not a hopeless or far-fetched ideal; it is a very practical one. After 10 years as one of the Prime Minister's foot soldiers in the European Parliament, I am aware of the pitfalls, the barbed-wire and all the difficulties involved.
The choice for the United Kingdom is quite clear: it is engagement or withdrawal. I do not believe that there is a halfway house. I do not believe in a second-class citizenship in Europe. I can imagine the Prime Minister's response if she were invited to captain the second eleven in

551
the European Community. We have to be part of the ongoing process of Europe or get out of the Community. There is no practical way between the two.
If there is no choice but to continue—and I do not believe that this Government, with its commitment to Britain's role in the world, could conceivably contemplate withdrawal, because our role in the world is so involved in our membership of the Community—we have to consider how to make the best of it. There are several guidelines that would help us in the coming months, when there will be important decisions to take.
First, we should use a rhetoric which is appropriate to the occasion. We are told constantly that there are people who agree with us. They do not declare it, but there is anecdotal evidence that there are people who agree fundamentally with what we say. We have to make it possible for them to declare that they agree with us. Sometimes we erect a wall of rhetoric which does not reflect our politics and makes it difficult for them to declare that they share our point of view. That is an important political fact about achieving our objectives.
Secondly, we should be careful about the erection of the Brussels bureaucracy into some kind of modern evil empire with Mr. Delors as the demon king. I simply do not believe that that is a plausible representation or that it helps our case. I should like to see the return of pragmatism to our debates in the Community; I have always assumed it to be the great British virtue.
Thirdly, we must recognise that the single market is not and has never been a purely economic doctrine. It has always had implications for sovereignty, for all the reasons that are enshrined in the Single European Act; it has always been a constitutional as well as an economic movement. Other people have the right to define 1992 in terms that suit their political conditioning, background and needs. I agree that the social charter is a mish-mash of half-baked ideas of doubtful legal status; I agree that we should not eat at that table. Nor, however, should we deny that others may have political needs—for example, a social market tradition in their economies—that they will wish to put on the agenda.
I also believe that there is a close link between European Community processes and defence, and that involves Germany's role. Not the least of Europe's achievements has been the anchoring of Germany's fragile democracy in the western camp—
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Not now.
Mr. Curry: Democracy has been fragile throughout German history. A common subject for discussion in the European council chambers is "Can we trust the Germans?" I think that that is rather insulting to them, but I recognise that with the loosening of the reins in eastern Europe there are bound to be temptations. The best way in which we can ensure that Germany remains a fully fledged western partner and part of NATO is by not denying her the important alternative vision of the continued progress of Europe, which is a crucial element of our defence.
We must approach the Madrid summit—where we will consider the Delors report—with care and circumspection, but with a determination to engage in discussions. First, we must say that chapter 39, with its irrevocable commitment, must go. I do not think that it amounts to a row of beans: it is a typical document produced by civil
552
servants who are impatient with the politicians' delay in making decisions. It will not bind any politician. Politicians may sign such documents, but if the circumstances change they will not keep to the agreement. Chapter 39 might just as well go now as be disproved later.
Secondly, we should distinguish between economic arid monetary union. There are links between them, of course, but they are not the same. There are plenty of examples of political organisations in which economic policy is to some degree independent of monetary union. I see no reason why the United Kingdom cannot sign up to stage one of the Delors report. It will involve joining the exchange rate mechanism, but there are arguments for that, although I recognise that there is hostility to it among my right hon. and hon. Friends. The argument can cut either way, and I am not sure that I would fight a religious war over it.
We are likely to experience a decline in inflation relatively soon, along with the price stability achieved by the continental countries—partly through stringent monetary policy, but also because of the link in the exchange rate mechanism. Ireland's inflation is running at 2·5 per cent. I feel that the case is, on balance, in favour of joining the ERM before long. For one thing, I feel that it is the least expensive means of reducing inflation: the commitment to fight it will be given an institutional form which will influence the market. Perceptions matter in this business. I also believe that the introduction of the pound will mean that the whole mechanism must be expanded and strengthened. That will take time, and will take priority over more weird and wonderful aspects of the Delors report, of which I share the suspicion voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
Joining the European monetary system would require a more formal structure of central bank co-operation, agreement on monetary targets and a strengthening of commitment to intervention. Conversely, however, strengthening the commitment may require a less practical use of that commitment.
I believe that the Government have brought about significant achievements in Europe: the fight against protectionism, the importance assigned to the link with the United States—which is crucial—the reform of finances and farm policy, and the drive for the single market. When the history of this period is written, I believe that people will identify the break-up of the Communist empire, the new relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States—and the new relationship between Europe and the United States that is bound to evolve—the development of the Pacific Rim economies and the unification of Europe. This is one of the most historic movements that have taken place in my generation, and I trust that the United Kingdom will play a full and constructive part in it.
8.34 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: I thought that the most interesting part of the speech by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was his observation that there comes a point in the history of various parts of the world at which power moves from what he described as the old concentrations. He also made the fair point that it is entirely legitimate for people to pursue the national interest, and to view changing circumstances from a "national interest" perspective. There is certainly a recognition that power is moving from the old concentrations of the Union created in 1707 to the wider

553
union of the European Community, leading many—including myself—to argue that Scotland should be an independent member of the Community.
In the past few months, the response to that logical argument—in particular, from the Governor General of Scotland—has been that Scottish policy is vigorously championed inside the Community, but that the present apparatus operated by the British Government is adequate to locate Scotland's influence within the Community. As the White Paper shows, the reality is very different. It tabulates 32 meetings of the Council of Ministers, at only three of which the Scottish Office was represented—and those meetings were concerned only with fisheries. Fourteen informal meetings were held, at none of which Scottish Office Ministers were present. It seems that, apart from fisheries, there was no direct, distinct or unique Scottish interest in matters such as the environment, energy, insurance, banking, social Europe, health, technology, education and steel. The White Paper mentions the
"major ministerial speeches on Community topics"
to be found in annex C. Of the 49 speeches logged there, not one was made by a Scottish Minister. That illustrates the scale of Scottish silence and—in my view—impotence, and our lack of influence on European policy.
I want to concentrate on two issues. The first is social Europe, and here I address myself to the Under-Secretary. It has been interesting to hear the different points of view about the legal basis of a veto on social Europe. Some hon. Members have said that it will be subject to a qualified majority, others that it will be subject to unanimity. The Minister of State has hedged and dodged a fair amount by saying that the Government have to see what is contained in the directive that will come before us before giving a positive and formal response. Surely the legal basis of the social charter should be clarified at an early date: it is an issue of genuine public concern and should be widely debated.
Many people, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community, regard social Europe as the other side of the coin, balanced equally with the free-market aspect of the Single European Act and the attempt to set up an internal market. In its report to the Council in December, the outgoing Commission makes that point very forcefully. But the British Government seem to view it as one-way traffic: everything that strengthens capital must be pushed forward. The free movement of capital puts it in a powerful position to exploit opportunities in the wider internal market, but also puts it in a powerful position to exploit the Labour party.
The British Government's scenario, as I understand it, involves no attempt to obtain an even or indeed a reasonable balance between capital and labour, especially in a Community with such a desperate level of economic development.
There will be a temptation on the part of capital to play one group of workers off against another group because of the different levels and standards of wages and conditions in different parts of the Community. Capital will attempt to force down wage rates and standards of health and safety. We have seen it already in the so-called free market United Kingdom economy, in the treatment of people who
554
used to be protected by wages councils and of young people aged 16 or 17 who are told to take youth training scheme places or get no money.
The majority of the 320 million people in the Community live in civilised economic countries, where market forces are subject to control. They have experienced economic and social success because of that. We cannot expect them to accept undiluted Thatcherism as the only consequence of the Single European Act and the internal market. If the British Government do not know it, others in Europe recognise that people are the biggest, most important and most valuable resource. Other countries will want to continue a "people first" policy, giving people respect and dignity and acknowledging their importance by ensuring that in the world of work, which is important to every individual, they have enshrined rights, the same as employers are given by the so-called deregulation and freedom of the open market. It is shameful and ultimately destructive for the United Kingdom Government to threaten a veto on the social charter.
The second issue involves principle. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) put it well when he said that the British Government have to make up their mind whether it is engagement or withdrawal. I do not think that people and politicians in this state have ever made up their minds about whether they are part of the European Community. I know that, physically and legally, the answer is that we are a part of the Community, but I am asking the question in a political/economic sense.
The political arena is crucial. Attitudes, will power and a willingness to be constructive, to participate and to see other people as partners, not opponents, are vital. The United Kingdom seems to be part of the European Community, but not with the Community. Until that fundamental question is solved, we will continue to have girning, bickering, tackling and scrambling along, as the rest of Europe, which is used to consensus and partnership, makes significant progress. I do not think that there has ever been an honest answer from Government in the main areas of policy-making to that fundamental question.
The Single European Act was designed to produce momentum and to enable the European Community to hold its place in the new world order that is opening up. Any hon. Member who believes that a single country can stand by and watch the shift of economic and political power from the Atlantic to the Pacific and still survive without co-operation in Europe is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
The important issue is what Europe does next. There will have to be further decisions on the kind of political and economic instruments needed to control the forces realised by the internal market. What kind of Europe will our children inherit in the 21st century? That is the crucial question. Instead of talking ridiculous and childish nonsense about whether cigarette packets should have the health warning on the side or on the front, we should put our energy into the bigger issues. Statesmanship and vision are required. I do not think that we will get them from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) or from the Prime Minister. They should be there, but they are not.
What we see from the Thatcher Government is a demeaning exercise in chauvinism stoked by parochialism. It makes many people ashamed to be associated with it. I

555
wish to dissociate my party from it and I hope that it will not be long before Scotland in its entirety is dissociated from it.
8.45 pm
Mr.William Cash: I am strongly in favour of Europe, but I am equally vehement against federalism. This has been a momentous year in Europe, partly because of the Bruges speech. I do not think that enough attention has been paid to the important effect of that speech on the development of the European Community. There is no doubt that it has reset the agenda. It has done one other thing, too. The developments that have taken place in the House on the redefinition of our approach towards the scrutiny of legislation that comes to us from Europe will be emulated by other national Parliaments. We have already seen evidence of that in France, and I believe that it will happen in other member states.
During the debate we have heard about the use of the veto. One thing that has to be made clear is that the exercise of the veto and the ability to fall back on the unanimity provisions in the treaty are important in relation to VAT and to those parts of the social charter that are subject to the veto—there is a grey area there. The powers of the House through the scrutiny process and the exercise in the Council of Ministers of the powers accumulated by Ministers will be seen to be more valid because of the use of the veto than because of the Single European Act majority voting provisions.
That is not to say that, if the Single European Act were to be voted on again, I would vote differently from the way in which I voted originally. If our membership of the Community is to mean anything and if we are committed to the European Community, with the 300 or so legislative proposals that were outstanding, we could not have removed the logjam without a form of majority voting.
I am concerned that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of the Community. My right hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)> and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) talked about the importance of persuasion and about whether we should have something akin to a commonwealth of nations. We heard the same comment from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is important that the House should reflect on the fact that this is a legal order with a Court of Justice which has a tendency, if not an objective, towards political integration in Europe. There are those—I have come across them frequently and I do not criticise them for the honesty with which they hold their views—who genuinely believe that we should move towards a federally and politically integrated and united Europe. I disagree with them profoundly. The great empires that aspired to be constructed on the basis of legal arrangements all came to nothing. We need a flexible, mutual, reciprocating Europe of the kind that we now have, with the existing arrangements that were set up in the aftermath of the Single European Act.
We must accept that there has been a policy of moving by stealth towards a politically united Europe. That is openly admitted by people in the Community. They make no secret of it. The situation has been blown open largely by the Bruges speech and by a handful of people who have campaigned to bring it into the open.
There remains a strong sense of dirigism in the Community, and my great concern, of equal proportion to
556
my concern about sovereignty, is the tendency within the dirigiste system for a move towards autocracy. I would not be worried about that if I genuinely thought that there was a means of filling the democratic vacuum—we hear much about the democratic deficit; I prefer to call it the democratic vacuum—that exists.
There are two alternatives. One is to move step by step towards—as the vice-president of the European Parliament put it—a single government for a sovereign people of Europe, which is the European Parliament. I would regard moving towards that goal as being fatal to Europe, let alone to this country and to my constituents. The second is to reinforce the democratic process in this House and persuade people—to borrow some words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley at the end of his remarks—to bring back to the Parliaments of Europe, which are directly elected by their constituents, the task of representing them, thereby ensuring that we return to a range and horizon of democracy which fits in with the huge area of legislation and activity that has been absorbed into the European Community.
I firmly believe that the remoteness that the European Community would experience as a result of going down a quasi federal path would result in contact with the people being lost. It would not be long before democracy disintegrated. It is an irony that at a time when there are centrist tendencies in the system that we are experiencing, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other countries are going centrifugal, not centrist. There are those in the United States who would like to see their arrangements changed because of an over-influence by states which interferes with the speed with which trade must be conducted.
I agree with the Prime Minister in her policies towards Europe. The Bruges speech was the major turning point of the European Community this year, not merely for Britain but for Europe as a whole. We will continue to have independent sovereign states, but we must look at the precision of the legal treaty base of the Community. At the same time, we must look at the powers and democratic traditions of this and other European countries.
Democracy in this country, with two world wars behind us and 300 years of tradition, is worth preserving. It must be admitted that some member states have only recently had revolutions or experienced totalitarianism, so that their democracies are shallow and need time to develop. If we in the Mother of Parliaments maintain the degree of democracy that is required in this House and persuade the other member states to look hard at our determination to ensure that democracy survives here, Europe will be a more democratic place for all the people of Britain, and of Europe generally, to inhabit.
8.55 pm
Mr. William Ross: When I first came to this House 15 years ago I heard much the same arguments being adduced about Europe as I have heard today. I have listened with interest, as always, to what has been said, remembering that we are looking back not only at the last six months, which are covered by the report, but from where we are now to where we were all those years ago. There seems now to be a role reversal between the two main parties, at least on the surface, compared with the position when I first came to this place. I wonder why that role reversal has come about if not because some newer

557
hon. Members have come to understand the consequences which face us if we proceed down the road that we have followed for the past 15 years.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) told a story about getting on a train and being able to get off here and there and said that there was no timetable for the journey. But there was a destination, as there is in the matter that we are discussing, and in this case the destination was mapped out long ago. It is that destination that has always troubled me. While other parties have to some extent shifted their ground, the Ulster Unionist party has not shifted its position one iota on this. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might find their party in a happier position on the matter today if they had not been so busy shifting their ground in recent months.
The Single European Act was sold to this House as the vehicle which could deliver to the population of Britain a single open market—a sort of western Europe wide open market for our products. If that was all that it was supposed to do, and if people believed that, then I confess that many Members of Parliament were either wilfully or willingly deceived, for not everyone who was putting that idea forward had only that idea in mind. There was a long-term destination before those who put up the Single European Act and all that went before it. In other words, the creators of that Act went far beyond a single market. I believe that they sought a united states of Europe, a single government, a single currency and a single policy for that government, acting as any government must. The Act was largely a smokescreen to hide the real intentions, for those concerned were talking about a market rather than about the constitutional and political implications.
The whole matter goes far beyond the scrutiny aspect to which reference has been made. The fact that there is now the necessity for scrutiny shows how much power we have given away and the many areas over which we no longer exercise real authority—or, as others have put it, sovereignty—in the governance of this nation.
Free trade does not need the same Government, the same law or even the same currency. We had references earlier, in effect, to statements such as, "Poor little Britain," "Poor little England," "Poor little United Kingdom" and "What can we do on our own?" I wonder how anybody elected to this House could think so little of the capabilities of the people whom they govern. I have greater confidence than that in the people of this country.
Although I was very young at the end of the last war, I think back to the condition of Europe, and particularly of Japan, at that time. Now we have only to walk through our streets and to look in the windows of our shops to see them stuffed with high quality products produced by the economic miracles of Japan and Germany, to name but two countries. This country has within it the ability to do far better on its own than it has hitherto. I have confidence in this country, and I am glad that my hon. Friends and I have always taken a jaundiced view of the EEC in all its forms. I am glad to see that other hon. Members—some, unexpectedly, Conservative Members—are coming round to the view that we have always held.
9 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: This has been a thoughtful and interesting debate, and one in which the opening speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was not echoed by most of the other speakers from the Labour party. That shows the deep divisions on this matter that exist in the Labour party. It is trying to grope towards a new view of Europe, and a more positive suggestion, although I believe that it did not join in the collective declaration of building Socialism in Europe, which was made by the other Socialist parties represented in the European Parliament.
Mr. Foulkes: We signed the joint Socialist manifesto of all the European Socialist parties. The Labour party was a full signatory.
Mr. Dykes: That is a good way of explaining it. I meant that many Labour party members both here and in the European Parliament argued against that very idea. There have been changes within the other parties as well. However, the Liberals are entitled to say that, over the years, they have been consistent in their general enthusiasm for Europe. We remain, however, not only, as is self-evident, the governing party, but the party with the classic enthusiasm for Europe. That has been shown in today's debate with, perhaps, one or two exceptions, though not many.
There is a realisation that we must go forward as a Conservative party and a Conservative Government in developing the European Community. There is a tremendous enthusiasm for that, as shown in the Prime Minister's so-called Bruges speech. One sees in it a tremendously profound enthusiasm for the European Community. Some members of the press, and perhaps some members of the Conservative party, have misunderstood that. Quite logically and understandably, it is when we come to the details that we find different arguments being advanced. That is not a weakness or a problem. We also have arguments about aspects of domestic policy in the Conservative party before policies are finally formulated. We hope that people will rally round when the policies are finally agreed and presented by way of legislation. Could that not provide the same basis for our approach to the proposals on how the Community is being developed?
I am known to be enthusiastic about the development of the European Community and recent constitutional changes to try to accelerate that, because the Community was developing in such a hesitant and faltering way. However, I would not accept such an absurd idea that we should approve of everything suggested by, for example, the Commission by way of new policies or everything that comes out of the Council of Ministers and different portfolio Councils on various complicated matters. That would be crazy and would not lead to a genuine Community.
It would equally be a weakness if members of the Conservative party began to have what some members of the press have recently described as fatal second thoughts about the Community. I do not think that will happen. It is merely a temporary pause and nothing more than a blip on the radar screen. Why such doubts have suddenly arisen remain a mystery.
Like, I am sure, other hon. Members, I receive many letters on this subject, which has become a major debate.

559
It is regrettable that the House always return to the first principles involving why we joined. As far as I know, no other national Parliament does that. Even the Spanish, who joined fairly recently, now get on with their membership of the Community. I recently had a very telling letter from someone living in Oxford. After commenting on a letter which I had had published in a newspaper, the writer said:
"In common with many others I am most anxious lest the UK marginalises itself in the Europe of the future. The P.M. has said 'our destiny is in Europe'—but geographically we are on the edge—therefore we have to be especially positive in policy discussion—
Mr. Marlow: Cannot the hon. Gentleman read his brother's writing?
Mr. Dykes: If I had time I would comment on that, but sedentary interruptions are not allowed in these brief speeches tonight.
The quote continues:
"if we are to play a leading role."
That is not merely because we are geographically on the edge. More importantly, we joined much later than the original members, which produced its own built-in disadvantage which still exists.
It is not a weakness to see the point of view of others in the Community. That is, I suppose, the definition of the word "community". From our travels in other member states, we know that they still have suspicions, which unfortunately have been renewed recently, about our membership because of the various utterances made from time to time. That is a pity.
I notice that our latest intellectual party document about politics called "Talking Politics", which all Conservative Members use religiously, said on 11 May:
"Europe: the Conservative approach. The single market is a Conservative invention, making the Community a real common market at last."
I am proud of the ideas that we are developing with the single market. However, the idea is not that no other member state is keen on the idea of a single market. That is why it has been developed, because it is a common Community decision. Therefore, we must be careful to listen to our fellow member nations and bodies politic in the different countries, and members of the European Parliament representing other national delegations.
I am sorry to have to make such a heretical suggestion, which I know is risky as we work more and more with foreigners, but we must also listen more to Commission officials. There are British officials in the Commission who have plenty of ideas about the future development of the European Community. We cannot say that we have a monopoly of ideas and that the Commission officials are to deal with only the mercantilist, commercial single market and nothing else, and that there is no such thing as social policy.
The premier capitalist economy of Europe, Germany, is unfortunately much more successful than we are, although I hope that we shall one day catch up with them. Even Right-wing German business men regard the concepts of social policy as perfectly legitimate instruments of Government policy and decision-making.
Mr. Maude: That is what they are so cross about.
Mr. Dykes: The Minister makes a good point, which I accept readily because that is the essence of the Community. Other member states will have different
560
packages of ideas reflecting their historical traditions, proclivities and particular political majorities. I hope that we will not enter the scenario of dictating what political majorities the other member states should have. Some of my colleagues do seem to have been tempted recently to suggest that.
Mr. Maude: These are very proper matters for the German Government to have in mind. All we are saying is that we do not believe that we should have German ideas about social policy planted on us. It should be for this House to decide that.
Mr. Dykes: I entirely accept that. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is a communautarian. I have always believed that, and I know that he has a tremendous enthusiasm for the single market. I want him to be in the frame of mind of accepting other ideas as well. The Community is about give and take. We should not say that we refuse to accept the idea of country X, for whatever mysterious or self-evident reason. I do riot think that that will arise.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) used to be very anti-EEC when he was a Labour Member, but has now changed.[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and I have a continuing dialogue about these matters. The hon. Member for Govan and others have said that we should have more self-confidence in this country. The Government need more self-confidence vis-a-vis the rest of the Community. Why are our Government so nervous about the European Community? This Parliament too needs more confidence about the European Community.
I totally reject the idea that scrutiny will not be effective in the future, under the guidance and tutelage of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Those procedures will become much better. This Parliament will link up with European Parliaments and—why not?—with the other national Parliaments as well. Then we will fall within the true definition of a Community where there is give and take. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, it is not only national self-interest superimposed on a developing supranational structure, although that is the main motive driving force. We look after the nation's interests and therefore, we hope, the interests of our citizens and voters.
However, it is not only that. There is also the idealism of the Community—the common desire to build a modern prosperous and social Europe. I do not think that the social charter will be a problem, and the Government need not appear hysterical about it. I hope that I have used the wrong adjective. I believe that there will be give and take and that in the end the matter will be agreed around the negotiating table at Madrid, or later, in the relevant Council. Individual states will compromise; they can develop their own ideas and not be dictated to by others.
However, if we—fatally—keep repeating week in and week out that we are opposed to a collective view on all aspects of policy in the Community, we shall make ourselves more and more marginal, to use the word in the letter that I quoted, even though we have been a member for 16 years. That would be humiliating, and I refuse to accept it. Such a result would be unnecessary and would make us look utterly foolish in Brussels and Strasbourg. Whatever the election result on 15 June, we shall need to

561
work with our colleagues in the European Parliament on collective scrutiny so that we can influence Government policy.
I always enjoy the highly theoretical but sincere speeches made by the hon. Member for Newham, South who, like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), described the wonderful, mystical ballot-box relationship between the people and this sacred sovereign Parliament. It would be nice if that theory were right, but in practice we know how the system works: the usual channels, the Whips clamping on the whip, ossified majorities in this place and a voting system which allows Governments to rule without restraint or limitation on the basis of a minority vote of the total electorate. All systems have their imperfections—but also take advantage of the fabulous opportunities which were described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery).
9.12 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: This has been a fascinating debate—it is going on in the country, too. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who we all know is a sincere and enthusiastic supporter of the Common Market, must be rather a disappointed man this evening. Things have gone so far that he is reduced to being engaged in controversy with the Government and Conservative Front Bench spokesmen, which shows the split that has developed in his party. At one time, the hon. Member for Harrow, East, like others in this country, must have thought that the Common Market issue was settled, but it clearly is not. It has now reached the forefront of British politics and caused a major split in the Conservative party. That does not surprise me greatly—I always thought that it would happen. I merely wondered why it took quite so long to do so.
The basic truth is that we are faced with a major dilemma, and by "we" I mean every Member in all of the many corners of opinion on the Common Market in this House—the issue does not divide neatly into two sides. This dilemma takes the form of the incompatibility of the EEC with our parliamentary system. The Community is incompatible with the democratic parliamentary self-government of this country. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) always diverts my attention by shaking his head right under my nose at what I say—he has done so for years-but whatever he thinks, to the extent that the Common Market develops, if it does, and to the extent that it succeeds in its own terms, our Parliament becomes more and more redundant. That is the fact with which we shall all have to cope. We can only have one or the other: British parliamentary democracy or the treaty of Rome. I suspect that no one ponders these matters more than you, Mr. Speaker.
Some people say that the answer is proper scrutiny. I am all in favour of as much scrutiny as we can effect, and I pay tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, even under his chairmanship of the Scrutiny Committee, satisfactory scrutiny is not possible, for a number of reasons.
562
First, there is so much of this legislation; secondly, there is the timing of the tortuous process. A third reason was adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that Ministers go to the Common Market under prerogative powers-treaty-making powers—and act in the name of the Crown, not that of Parliament. When that question was asked, I rose on a point of order, the only time in 10 years that I have done so. I felt strongly about this, because the Minister refused to answer my right hon. Friend's question. She could not answer the question whether Ministers act with prerogative powers and are thus beyond the powers of the House. She is fudging the issue. We can have as much scrutiny as we like, but if we send our Ministers under article 100A, and there is majority voting, even if we are capable of instructing our Ministers they may be outvoted.
The Prime Minister sent the Secretary of State for Health on a humiliating trip recently. It concerned the wording on cigarette packets, and the Minister told the EEC to keep its nose out, because this was a matter for the House of Commons. The EEC told him to get lost. So even if there is unanimity in this House and we send a Minister off to Brussels convinced of our opinions, it will make no difference because the powers have been lost under the Single European Act.
The shoe is beginning to pinch. The sovereignty of Parliament is not a reactionary idea: it is the British way of doing things. I hope that people will not mock that way, which has come out of our history and is not a party-political issue. Parliament is sovereign; there are no restraints on it—that is the constitutional doctrine. We are not bound by past generations. Each new generation can do its own thing in its own way. That is the British genius and it has served us extremely well.
The Common Market imposes restrictions, inhibitions and restraints on us and tells us what to do. As that happens more frequently, it inevitably causes friction and tension. The EEC keeps extending its competence—it is sometimes called creeping competence. We have not paid much attention to the six-month report, but I shall refer to it out of deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—I know that he reads these documents every night before he goes to bed. The report informs us that the Scrutiny Committee considered 415 documents and recommended 48 for debate in the House—
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Leighton: I do not want to offend my hon. Friend, but I hope to allow another Conservative Member to speak before the debate ends—I even hope that he may agree with some of what I have said.
No one can deny that debating these issues late at night is unsatisfactory. It is a farce and a sham, and hon. Members know that, which is why they do not bother to turn up.
The Council of Ministers is a legislature that meets in secret. Whatever it decides is then translated willy-nilly into our law. Every time that happens that is subverting and derogating from our Parliament and not just from one side of the House. If there is a political development, perhaps we will change sides and we will have some say in Government. It is the nation's Parliament that is being derogated from.

563
The Single European Act destroys the pledges that were given in the referendum, when the Government issued a paper that said that no new policy or law could be inflicted on Britain without the assent of a British Minister accountable to the House. That pledge has been destroyed, because that Minister can now he outvoted. I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is present. That process in the EEC will not only destroy our parliamentary self-government, but will fragment the United Kingdom. Why should the Scots bother to send Members of Parliament to Westminster if decisions are taken not here but in Brussels? The Scots are likely to think that it is a waste of time sending Members of Parliament here, and that will damage the unity of the country.
The incompatibility must be resolved. It is now coming to the boil. We have not heard the end of the story. Some of us have taken an interest in the matter, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) when he carried out his research found that I was one of the 10 noble Members who voted on Third Reading—
Mr. George Foulkes: It was 20 hon. Members.
Mr. Leighton: I hope that I was one of those 20. I have been in that noble band over the years and I intend to keep with its noble cause, because I belong to the Parliament party and I am sure that in this country we will prevail.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Redwood:This country is making an important contribution to the development of the European Community in keeping alive the argument for liberalisation of markets and for deregulation. This country is keeping alive the argument that prosperity grows most swiftly and progress is made most rapidly when the case for less government is urged successfully on those who would over-govern or over-regulate. We can see that in a number of positive proposals that have been put through on British initiatives or have been strongly argued for by British representatives—for example, the deregulation of some aspects of civil aviation, which has brought cheaper air fares and more choice of routes; the liberalisation of capital movements, which has created a more genuine financial market across Europe; and the proposals to deregulate telecommunications and aspects of public purchasing, which can give businesses a real chance to sell in the wider European market and develop the commercial links, the interchange and commerce on which the entire growth of the European ideal must rest.
I dissent from those who have argued that British industry is ill-equipped to meet that challenge or is in some way impeded by the policies being pursued. Obviously, the contrary is the case. British business wants a Government consistent in defending British interests, consistent in arguing for more access and consistent in arguing for less government and more freedom for business to prosper, and that is what business in this country has. We can see that that has succeeded by the way in which the Japanese, the Americans and others outside the Community wish to locate and invest here to ensure that they are in a good position. They come to the country where enterprise policies are most supported and where the British community gives them the kind of backing that they require to exploit the wider European market.
564
When I came to the debate, I was obviously conscious that there had been arguments in the press about possible splits. I found the debate interesting because there is indeed a massive split on offer in the House today—and it has been seen in the Opposition. A succession of Labour Members have made extremely powerful speeches in defence of British national democracy and against the European Community at exactly the same time as Labour Front Bench spokesmen have argued that Labour is now the good European party. They are the same Labour Front Bench spokesmen who will not tell us all their policies on Europe and have tried to keep them secret from their own party until the publication of a document, from which many of their colleagues feel excluded, in which policies are developed which are not good European policies by Commission standards. The Labour party does not accept that Brussels should fix British taxation, economic policy, social policy or many other policies. The Labour party appears to be moving closer to the Government's position in accepting that we are part of a wider European Community and that that wider Community is one that must be limited in its ambitions and concentrate above all on the prospects of 1992.
9.25 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I, too, came into British politics because of an enthusiasm for the European Community, but I share the apprehensions, of many other speakers about the apparent lack of democratic accountability within the institutions of that Community. There is a need to remedy that position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that we should not criticise M. Delors, because he was a senior civil servant similar to one of our senior civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said that Commissioners were servants of the Council. If only that were the case, but it clearly is not. The Single European Act, for example, says that the Council acts on a proposal from the Commission. I believe that that is the root of some of our problems : it is the Commission that sets the agenda for what we are discussing. It is not this Parliament and, regrettably—although it now has some increased powers—it is not yet the European Parliament. Most proposals are coming from people who are not accountable to any of us, which is the root of many of our problems.
I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the other Ministers who have been going to the meetings of the various Councils on the progress that they have made towards 1992. I believe that on the banking own funds directive, financial services, public procurement, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and indirect taxation they have done a good job. However, I do not believe that many of the Commission's other proposals are relevant to the completion of the internal market or the creation of prosperity in Europe. An example of that has been the social charter. The Commission has its priorities wrong, and it should be concentrating much more on other areas that are in urgent need of being rectified if we are to create a true common market and a true European Community.
It is important to consider Government subsidies. The French, for example, in comparison to us, give double the amount of subsidies to their industries, the Germans two

565
and a half times more, and the Italians eight times more. That urgent matter has not been addressed by the Commission and I believe that it has been extremely dilatory.
One needs only to read the Court of Auditors' report to realise that nothing like enough has been done to prevent fraud. At the moment the management is totally incompetent. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already described how progress on general insurance is being frustrated. Enormous barriers to takeovers still exist within the European Community. Anyone can come to this country and take over one of our companies, but in Germany and Spain there are no formal takeover codes. The enormous problems still facing the Community must be solved.
The social charter proposals take away from national parliaments what should be their responsibility. To retain some form of national sovereignty does not contradict the idea of progressing to some form of federal Europe. In the United States of America there is a national Government, but individual states take decisions on those issues about which they feel passionately or about which they believe the local communities should have the right of decision. I believe that that should be the future model for Europe. We should not go along with the social charter claptrap that is now coming out of the Commission.
9.29 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: Those of us who are regular connoisseurs of such debates, whether as volunteers or conscripts, will agree that this has been a vintage occasion. Although the Opposition greatly welcomed the debate—much more than the Government, I hazard the guess—we would much prefer properly organised prospective rather than retrospective debates. We could then consider forthcoming decisions in the Community and express our views and the House could begin to take a greater interest in proper scrutiny of that legislation.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was the only hon. Member to consider the previous six months in detail. Certainly they were eventful, particularly the infamous Bruges speech to which almost everyone has referred today. That speech was so internally inconsistent as to be totally self-contradictory. One sentence proclaiming an alleged belief in the European ideal was followed by another beating the nationalist drum and challenging the basic tenets of the Community. Henceforward, however, we are to describe that speech as an example of twin-track policy—we have the Minister of State to thank for that description. If such double-speak was intended to confuse our enemies, it succeeded only in confusing our friends and partners in Europe.
Perhaps the Prime Minister is confused. Confusion was certainly apparent in her astonishing impromptu speech —referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—at the Daily Mail and Evening Standard opening with Bubbles Rothermere et al. The Prime Minister said in reply to her predecessor:
"We stood when freedom was challenged, we stood and we fought for freedom and the liberation of Europe was mounted
566
from our shores, and would not have been liberated unless we had stood and unless America had joined us. That is the vision of Europe I have. That is what the battle is really about."
What a strange comparison. Apparently, she perceives the threat from Brussels as comparable with that from Adolf Hitler.
Such speeches are part of the "lively" dialogue that has been taking place within the Tory party. It is not just nuances of difference or even two to six different interpretations—it is now open warfare. Lord Plumb, a leading Conservative, described his Prime Minister's actions as "petty national protectionism". He said that her call for a Europe merely of sovereign states, co-operating with each other where they wished, misunderstood the nature of the Community. He put her right as firmly as any man can by pointing out that
"there are no serious advocates in the Community of a European super-state".
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) rightly reminded us of that today. I venture to suggest, with perhaps a little humility—(Interruption.]
Mr. Robertson: This is the new Labour party.
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, indeed.
I venture to suggest that we might make a better judgment on the issues if we recognised that the European Community is neither a capitalist plot, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) might think, nor the Socialist super-state envisaged by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The Community is what we, as members, make it. Whether we agree to share our sovereignty is our decision.
In the debate that has been raging within the Conservative party we know that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has been less restrained in his criticisms than Lord Plumb. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) quoted the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) extensively and that right hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently for himself. From all the discussions and actions of the past few weeks it is not clear, however, whether the general confusion, and, in particular, the confusion about the Single European Act, is caused through ignorance or deliberate duplicity.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, article 100A of the Single European Act was rushed through the House, with a three-line Whip and a guillotine, against a united Opposition. We considered the legislation in Committee on the Floor of the House on a Friday and the Government panicked and moved the closure because they were so worried by the effectiveness of the opposition.
It was clear to us, as it ought to have been clear to Conservative Members, that the Single European Act introduced qualified majority voting on health—that includes warnings about the danger of smoking—safety, environmental pollution and consumer protection. The only exclusions were fiscal provisions, those relating to the free movement of persons, and the rights and interests of employed persons. Either Conservative Members knew what they were doing but now regret it and pretend that the reality is different from what it is, or they did not know what they were doing, which would have been a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
The Prime Minister is now stamping her foot petulantly and getting her Cabinet Ministers to mimic her in Europe,

567
not just in relation to smoking but, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, on identity cards for pensioners—an idea that came from the voluntary movement in this country—the health and safety package and the social charter.
Labour is enthusiastically committed to the proposals for a social Europe where workplaces are safe and workers are well trained, fully consulted and properly rewarded throughout their working lives. Labour is also enthusiastically committed to a Europe where the role and contribution of women is properly recognised. Our programme, announced this morning, for upgrading employment rights, for radically changing the nature of training, for putting industrial relations law on a fair footing and for cleaning up the working environment will reinforce and be reinforced by the agenda for a social Europe which is now being developed but which is vehemently opposed by the Prime Minister and Conservative Members.
At Prime Minister's Question Time earlier today, the Prime Minister described the social charter as more of a Socialist charter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) reminded us, however, Lord Plumb said at Chatham House—and others have repeated it today—that
"It is in fact part and parcel of ensuring fair competition."
On Tuesday last, Lord Cockfield said to the Select Committee on European Legislation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) chairs so excellently, that
"Social policy is part of the policy of the Community, as enshrined in the Single European Act."
If we are all to compete fairly in the Community, there must be harmonisation of the social as well as the economic and free market aspects of the Community. Equally, environmental standards need to be raised to the highest and equal levels, not just to keep our water pure and our beaches clean, but to ensure fair competition between enterprises in different countries. Capitalists do not voluntarily spend money on environmental protection if it cuts their profits. The Opposition know that all too well. On this, as on other issues, the Government are guilty not just of double-talk—the twin-track policy that we keep hearing about—but of double standards. We all marvelled when the Prime Minister suddenly discovered environmental issues and donned the green mantle, although, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, she donned it only to reveal that it is deeply soiled.
Once again, the Government's action fails to match the truth. If I may be forgiven for citing a local example, all seven Ayrshire beaches, including two in my constituency, fail to meet the requirements of the European Community directive on quality of bathing water, thus jeopardising health and undermining the huge and growing tourist potential. The Clyde river purification board urged the Government to take action and Strathclyde regional council wants to upgrade its sewage treatment works, but the Government refused to make capital available for that purpose. Again, they are all talk and no action. We now know that that is called a twin-track policy. The Prime Minister talks tough but fails to produce any effective action.
As we know, the Single European Act means that, increasingly, important decisions will be taken at a European level. That governmental activity must be brought under proper democratic control. The Opposition
568
see the path of future progress as being towards closer co-operation rather than an attempt to create a united states of Europe. As Ernest Bevin said, we are not going to open that Pandora's box and let all the Trojan horses out.
The solution is not to create a centralised tier of government in Brussels to supplant national government, but to make sure that the extensive and growing European co-operation that we seek is responsible to the British Parliament and the British people. Ministers must be made accountable to Parliament for the agreements that they make at the Council of Ministers. That is why we want an effective system of parliamentary scrutiny of European Community legislation. Again, the reality does not match the talk. The Government adopt a twin-track policy, as we must now call it. Statements in the House of what is being done in our name by Ministers in Brussels have withered to almost nothing. The Opposition have suggested a European Grand Committee to improve scrutiny, but no action has yet been taken. The Prime Minister and other Ministers prefer to keep decision-making away from the House and within the Civil Service, ministerial and Council of Ministers nexus where they can get on with it without any real scrutiny.
Our amendment highlights the inadequacy and ill-preparedness of the country to face the challenge of 1992. I am glad that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry—the so-called Department of enterprise which adopts another twin-track policy of all talk and very little action—is to reply to the debate. The British economy is saddled with a massive trade deficit and a higher inflation rate than in any comparable country. It is an under-invested, badly-trained, ill-equipped economy which is in no shape to compete in the 1990s. The right hon. Member for Henley correctly pointed out in his book that 90 per cent. of major British companies undertake no market research on the continent, and that 93 per cent. take no initiative to train employees in another European language. What are the Government doing? They are planning to send the Secretary of State for Education and Science to Brussels to veto the Lingua programme which might have improved that situation. In addition, 95 per cent. of British firms have no sales agents working in the rest of the Community. Those are just three key examples of our lack of preparation.
I hope that I have persuaded some Conservative Members who occasionally support us. The sad reality is that the Conservative Government have left Britain ill-prepared for our European future. Ten years of Conservative Government have left us too weak economically to meet the challenges and too socially backward to take the opportunities. The danger is that failing to meet the challenges and turning our back on the opportunities will condemn us to a mean and dispiriting future, as a depressed economic region on the edge of a greater European economy. We reject that option. That is why we ask the House to support our amendment.
9.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I have great pleasure in agreeing with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that we have had a most remarkable debate. He is a veteran of the

569
six-monthly debate; I am a veteran of the debates we somtimes have later at night. He was right to say that this has been a vintage occasion.
There has not been that much said about the White Paper which is the subject of the take-note motion. I do not go as far as my hon. Friends who, in their amendment, describe it as a "depressing document". Perhaps there is not enough life and sparkle in the document to keep a five-hour debate going.
We had a series of notable speeches, especially from my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), with a majestic historical sweep, opened up horizons which are of value to us all. My right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), to take just three hon. Members who made remarkable speeches, applied themselves seriously to the issue that has been of concern to the Conservative party for a long time.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an extremely powerful speech. He showed that the one theme running through all the speeches and which informs us all is that these are matters of the profoundest importance for the House. It has been a long debate and I have only 15 minutes in which to reply to it. Some of my hon. Friends have asked me to deal with specific points, but in the short time available to me I cannot possibly do justice to all the issues that have been raised. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not go into points in great depth.
There has been much comment about the future. Perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon in the debate was that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in opening for the Opposition sought to present his party as the most European. So European is it that while he spoke there were only six Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber and almost all of them disagreed with him. I can see why the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who wound up for the Opposition, was at pains to invite my right hon. and hon. friends to support the Opposition amendment. The reason for that is plain to see. The Opposition could rustle up only 20 Members to vote against Third Reading of the Single European Act, but it does not look as if they will be able to manage even as many as that tonight.
The serious contributions came predominantly from my right hon. and hon. Friends and I should like to deal with the central anxiety that some of them expressed, that we are not fully engaged in the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that we were nervous about the European Community. We are not a bit nervous and the facts utterly confound that anxiety. Every measure of compliance with directives, of the implementation of court judgments, of complaints to the Commission or courts against us shows us to have the best record in Europe.
Of course, we occasionally raise objections to a proposal at an early stage in a way that may look negative, but that is actually because as good Europeans we take European proposals seriously. That means that we sometimes point out difficulties and problems which others have not spotted. That enables us to take a lead in Europe.
570
Let us look at one example, the issue of approximation of indirect taxes. We said at an early stage that, quite apart from our objection to the imposition of VAT on food, the Commission's proposals were cumbersome and bureaucratic. We were derided for being negative, but we put forward alternative proposals which were better in every way.
We argued and persuaded for a solution which harnesses market forces and which avoids the centralisation and regulation of the Commission's proposals. By dint of our hard work and leadership, we have won over many other member states to the fundamentals of our position, and the Commission itself now recognises that its original proposals simply would not work. Yesterday it announced new ideas which go a good way towards meeting our basic concerns, for example, on zero rates. That is a major vindication of our firm stance. Of course there is much hard discussion ahead, but the argument is going our way. That is but one example of the ways in which Britain leads in Europe. I fully accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley says, that we should be at the leading edge. I believe that we are.
Let us look back 10 years to the issues which then bedevilled the Community and which some people argued threatened its very existence: a common agricultural policy totally out of control; a budget with huge imbalances; a single market which was no more than a dream; a Europe held together by cash and red tape. Ten years on, the CAP is beginning to be seriously reformed. At long last, surpluses are reducing. That has not happened by accident. It has happened because of hard arguing, firm leadership and a refusal to accept that it was impossible. Britain is in the lead.
We must not forget the huge and growing budget contribution which the previous Labour Government had so skilfully negotiated. In 1984 when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was negotiating to reduce the budget contribution, the Leader of the Opposition was characteristically supportive of British interests. He said that the Prime Minister had better enjoy the sunshine at Fontainebleau because he did not think that she was going to enjoy much else. He said that my right hon. Friend would not come away with £475 million adding, "That I do know."
For once the Leader of the Opposition was right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not come away with £475 million; she came away with £600 million and she has saved Britain £4.5 billion in total since then. Had my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not argued and argued and persuaded and persuaded, that net contribution would today be some £4 billion, which would represent nearly 3p on income tax. That was Labour's legacy.
Throughout the campaign to reduce contributions to the EEC, what was the Liberals' battle cry? It was "Surrender, surrender." Who takes the lead in attacking fraud in the Community? Once again, Britain has led and has pushed that issue high on the agenda.
The single market is no longer a dream. It is a growing reality. Who was pressing for that?
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way. I have little time.
We Conservatives said so many years ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup

571
(Mr. Heath) led us in that historic move into the Community that the achievement of a real, free, single common market was one of our principal goals. However, because of disagreements within the Community, because of other problems and because so many other countries have consistently defended their nationalistic and protectionist corners, progress was frustrated.
Time and again during the negotiations that I conduct for the United Kingdom, it is Britain which leads, it is Britain which drives programmes forward and argues for the European, liberal and genuinely free market solution. Only last June we supported a Council resolution stating that market forces should be strengthened, that the cost of compliance with Community legislation should be minimised and unnecessary regulation avoided and that existing legislation should be reviewed with a view to simplification. I stress that that was a proposal by the Commission which was supported by all 12 member states.
We are not isolated in Europe. We are winning converts all the time. We have rarely voted against single market measures. The only time that I did so was because the measure was not European enough. It would have allowed national protectionism to continue. In contrast, Germany has voted time and again, and been voted down, against measures which it found too liberal to stomach.
Let us consider some examples. Last year the Commission introduced a directive to open up the market in telecommunications terminals. We supported that directive because it would break down barriers to trade. However, the French, Italians and others are challenging it in the European Court. Last month we argued and won our case for a directive to liberalise transfrontier broadcasting. Who opposed it? It was opposed by Germany, Belgium and Denmark. On most of the issues we are in the majority. We are driving the programme forward. We are in the lead.
When we oppose proposals, as we do perfectly properly, it is rare for us to be alone. For example, we argued against the proposal for a right of residence directive partly because it dealt with issues outside Community competence. Many other member states had equal difficulty with it and the Commission has now withdrawn it.
The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and, increasingly, Germany are as fundamentally opposed as we are to the proposal on withholding tax. The suggestion that Britain is on the sidelines while the real arguments go on without us is incomprehensible to those of us who take part in the discussions, day by day, week by week and month by month. So often we argue, in close alliance with the Commission, for a free market and a deregulated Europe against the narrow nationalism of some of our partners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her speech at Bruges:
"Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community."
Nothing could be clearer than that.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken of the future of the Community and our future in it. Three years ago we signed the Single European Act. That was the first major change to the treaty of Rome for 30 years, and we agreed it. We signed it along with 11 other nations because it was necessary to achieve the original aims of the treaty. It was proving impossible to complete the single market against the single country veto. That is what the Single
572
European Act changed. It introduced majority voting for specific purposes. It was to enable the single market to be completed.
Mr Spearing: Not specific.
Mr. Maude: It specifically states that taxation, monetary issues and issues affecting the rights of employees can still be vetoed. We do not complain about majority voting. We have gained a great deal from it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, transfers of sovereignty are not done in pursuit of an ideal; they are done out of hard-headed self interest. That was done by all the 12 member states who signed the Single European Act.
Of course, there will occasionally be times when we lose, but as long as the issues on which we are voting are those which the Single European Act envisages, we will stand by those decisions. But we will argue, and so will many of our partners in Europe, against measures that extend Community competence beyond what we have agreed. Neither we nor our partners are being bad Europeans when we hold fast to the terms of the Single European Act. I make no apology for that.
Now there are further proposals for further institutional changes. The Delors report is a useful document. It is rigorous in its analysis and it fudges no issues. The central and unavoidable conclusion that it reaches, as we knew it must, is that an economic and monetary union involves a transfer of sovereignty from member states to the new central monetary institution and central control of fiscal policy. That effectively means political union.
I do not say that that will never happen. What I do say is that it is not now, nor for the foreseeable future will it be, something on which the Community could agree. That firm view, shared by others in the Community, does not mean that we will stand back from the discussions on monetary co-operation.
The Delors report sets out three phases towards monetary union, but I have to say that the committee made it much more difficult to take part in those discussions by linking, in article 39 of the report, agreement to phase I to agreement to phases 2 and 3. Of course, we can talk about phase 1. Far from our being on the sidelines, we are already well ahead of our colleagues in the Community. None of this can happen without the final removal of exchange controls in Europe. We did that 10 years ago. The rest of the Community, after we and the Commission argued and persuaded for so long, agreed to follow suit by the middle of next year.
It was we who pioneered the issuing of ecu Treasury bills and who led the way in holding ecu and other European currencies in our reserves. It is we who have open financial markets. It is we who have led the way. We may have a two-speed Europe, but it is we who are ahead.
Let me talk now about another area in which it is said that great changes must be made. I do not contest for a moment that there is a social dimension to the single market. That is all about providing benefits to our people as consumers, travellers and employees. All the studies show that a substantial number of new jobs will arise. But the one thing that would guarantee that we squander those benefits would be to encumber Europe with the dead weight of heavy social regulation.
That is why the Labour party is at long last taking an interest in Europe. The one consistency in its stance at any moment is that it is prompted not be principle but by its

573
cynical and incompetent calculation of electoral advantage. Its attitude to the single market repays study—opposition, opposition and opposition.
Dr. Seal, the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament, said:
"The completion of the single market will make many of Labour's industrial and trade union policies illegal."
He is right. The Labour party has concluded that if it cannot have Socialism through the front door, it will have it through the back door. It is right to think that it will not get it through the front door. The British people will ensure that. But we shall make sure that the back door is locked.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 176.

Division No. 208]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McNamara, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Marek, Dr John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Battle, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Bermingham, Gerald

Murphy, Paul

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Radice, Giles

Clay, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Corbett, Robin

Richardson, Jo

Cousins, Jim

Robertson, George

Cryer, Bob

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Dixon, Don

Short, Clare

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

Spearing, Nigel

Fyfe, Maria

Wall, Pat

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wareing, Robert N.

Gordon, Mildred

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Worthington, Tony

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Tellers for the Ayes:

Leighton, Ron

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Allen McKay.

McAllion, John

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Burns, Simon

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Burt, Alistair

Amos, Alan

Butterfill, John

Arbuthnot, James

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Carrington, Matthew

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Batiste, Spencer

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Bellingham, Henry

Chapman, Sydney

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cope, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Couchman, James

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cran, James

Body, Sir Richard

Curry, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

Boswell, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Peter

Day, Stephen

Bowis, John

Devlin, Tim

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dorrell, Stephen

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dunn, Bob

Brazier, Julian

Durant, Tony

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fallon, Michael

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

Favell, Tony

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Budgen, Nicholas

Fookes, Dame Janet

574

Forman, Nigel

Neubert, Michael

Forth, Eric

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

French, Douglas

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gale, Roger

Norris, Steve

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Paice, James

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Goodlad, Alastair

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Portillo, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Powell, William (Corby)

Harris, David

Price, Sir David

Hawkins, Christopher

Raffan, Keith

Hayes, Jerry

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Rathbone, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Redwood, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Rhodes James, Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Riddick, Graham

Howard, Michael

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

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

Rowe, Andrew

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Howells, Geraint

Shelton, Sir William

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunter, Andrew

Sims, Roger

Irvine, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jack, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Jackson, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

Janman, Tim

Steel, Rt Hon David

Jessel, Toby

Stern, Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stevens, Lewis

Johnston, Sir Russell

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Key, Robert

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Kilfedder, James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Kirkwood, Archy

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Knapman, Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Knowles, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Lilley, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Tracey, Richard

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Trippier, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Maclean, David

Viggers, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Major, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Malins, Humfrey

Wells, Bowen

Mans, Keith

Wheeler, John

Marland, Paul

Whitney, Ray

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Maude, Hon Francis

Wolfson, Mark

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Miller, Sir Hal

Yeo, Tim

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tellers for the Noes:

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Mr. David Lightbown and

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Nelson, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Developments in the European Community July-December 1988 (Cm. 641).
Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that only 51 Members voted in the Aye Lobby. Would it be possible for Hansard to include what I believe the European Community call an "explication de vote" so that we may

575
know how many hon. Members were anti-marketeers and how many were pro-marketeers—or whether perhaps they have been influenced by the new Labour policy document?
Mr. Speaker: We do not use Community procedure in this Chamber yet.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.

  LEGAL AID
  That the draft Legal Aid (Functions) (No. 2) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved. —[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Mr. Gerald Wheeler
  10.12 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Gerald David Wheeler of 9, Langdale house, Churchill gardens, London SW1. I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). He has expressed himself agreeable that I should present the petition on behalf of his constituent, who is very keen that it should be presented formally. Mr. Wheeler's sister is my constituent, which is why I was chosen to present it.
  This is a long petition, and I would summarise it thus. Mr. Wheeler believes that under parliamentary privilege in speeches in the House and reports thereof his integrity was impugned so seriously by the former hon. Member Mr. Leo Abse that his business foundered. He has sought legal remedy, but without success. His hurt remains, and to that end he prays as follows:
  Wherefore your Petitioner most humbly prays that your Honourable House will immediately take into consideration your Petitioner's continuing present personal grievance and appoint a Select Committee to examine and report on the submission by your Petitioner that he should be granted compensation and/or such other relief as it may think fit and proper.
  And your humble Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
  To lie upon the table.

National Theatre
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I welcome the opportunity to bring before the House the funding of the Arts Council and the Royal National theatre. As the House knows, the National theatre was a vision which took many years to become palpable. The House will wish to recognise the immense contribution made by Lord Olivier, by Lord Goodman, by the late Lady Lee and more recently by Lord Rayne.
The House might regard the Royal National theatre as currently thrice blessed in having my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) as one of its directors for the last nine years, and in having Lady Soames as its recently appointed chairman. There is no one in the country whose personal dynamism could better lead the Royal National theatre into the future. Her only conceivable drawback is that, were she to appear before the audience, she would upstage—nay, eclipse—every known leading lady, past, present and future.
The third blessing is in the combination of Richard Eyre as director and David Aukin as executive director. Those who saw Richard Eyre's directions at the National theatre of "Guys and Dolls", "The Beggar's Opera" and more recently the electrifying production of "The Changeling"—indeed, those whose theatrical memories go back as far as the Cambridge run of "Expresso Bongo" in the 1960s—will have recognised that here is a man of unusual genius and vision, with the capacity to evoke something unique and special from all involved in his productions.
With the help of Government, local authorities and private sponsors, and through much hard work, a unique national institution has at last been created with which a massive number of people, at home and abroad, identify. The Royal National theatre is the jewel in the crown of the British and, I believe, the European theatre. It exists, in the words of Richard Eyre,
"to do work which either by content or by execution, or both, could not be performed or would not be initiated in the commercial sector. It provides continuity of investment, of employment and of a theatrical tradition, and this requires a subsidy to supplement the revenues from the box office.
Composing the content of the repertoire will always be a balancing act between adventure and caution, between known classics and the unknown; recent plays and new ones. But the spine of the work will always be the classics which are our genetic link with the past and our means of decoding the present.
Every age sees its own reflection in these plays. We find in them not the past throwing a shadow on the present, but an image of ourselves. The classics survive, not because they are relics venerated for their age, but because of what they mean to us now.
But we have to keep rediscovering ways of doing the classics. They do not have absolute meanings. There is no fixed frozen way of doing them. Nostalgia is a powerful, but slow acting poison and it can cripple; the life of the theatre should always be in the present tense."
I will speak of the present. The institution that now exists consists of three separate and distinct theatres—the Olivier, based on the classical Greek theatre; the Lyttelton theatre, based on the proscenium arch theatres of the last three centuries; and the Cottesloe, based on the Tudor inn yards. They are modelled on theatrical designs from the three greatest periods of western drama.

577
Crucial to the experience of visiting the theatre is the front-of-house area which, in contrast to the cramped conditions of much of the commercial theatre, encourages people to relax and gives them room to do so. Sir Denys Lasdun's building has not met with universal praise at all times, but neither has St. Paul's cathedral. I believe that the Royal National theatre, on one of the most beautiful sites in London, will be seen by history as a far-sighted and brilliant extension of traditional theatrical ideas.
The front-of-house area is like a fourth auditorium, where people can browse at bookstalls, look at exhibitions, eat and drink, or sit and chat. Important, too, is the National theatre studio, financed by private sources and housed in the Old Vic annexe. There the National theatre refines and extends its skills and generates new writing and experimental work. Regular studio nights are held in the Cottesloe, when examples of work in progress are shown to the public for one night only.
Important, too, is the education department which links up with schools and colleges, and takes specially created productions on tour. Touring at home and abroad of main house productions, never in greater demand than now, is an important aspect of the theatre's work. I know that that importance is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and by the Arts Council. The theatre also provides facilities for visiting theatre companies, both from Britain and abroad.
I shall speak shortly about money, but I begin with quality. Productivity, cost-effectiveness, profit margins and so on are vital when we talk of accountability for public funds. At the end of the day, the case for the subsidised theatre is made on the stage, and the important questions, as Richard Eyre has said, are what is on the stage, is it any good, and what does it mean to the people who watch it? The recent excellent box office receipts of the Royal National theatre derive directly from the quality of the productions and the atmosphere of the theatre. A priceless national asset has been created which is going through an immensely exciting period, and it deserves every possible support that the Government and the House can give it.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that in what he says on this issue he has the full support not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and me, who are present, but of Members in all parts of the House, and that we wish him every possible success in this debate?
Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a great, loyal and effective supporter of the theatre.
In his introduction to his last report as chairman of the Arts Council, Lord Rees-Mogg said:
"those responsible for the distribution of public monies to the arts must never lose sight of the goal of excellence. The word fell into disuetude as the Arts Council, in collaboration with the Regional Arts Associations, developed policies which had the central aim of increasing the accessibility of the arts to all sorts and conditions of men and women. The Council was right to adopt this course, but must always take care not to be seen to abandon those on whose daring and skill—the painters, sculptors, actors, composers, film makers, writers, musicians, dancers—the whole great enterprise culture depends."
Unfortunately, the recent history of funding by the Arts Council and its current proposals give exactly the wrong
578
message. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend, in asking Lady Soames to become the chairman of the Royal National theatre, offered her a poisoned chalice, but her Ladyship may be forgiven for having woken up wondering whether the contents might not have been a trifle corked.
The current running costs of the Royal National theatre are in the region of £17 million, of which about £8 million comes from Arts Council subsidy. In 1987–88, the subsidy was not increased at all, during a year when inflation was over 4 per cent., and the grant from the Treasury to the Arts Council increased by nearly 3 per cent. In 1988–89, the subsidy from the Arts Council to the Royal National theatre increased by 1·35 per cent. at a time when inflation was nearly 3·5 per cent. and the grant from the Treasury to the Arts Council increased by 9·4 per cent.
It is now proposed by the Arts Council that for the next three years—that is, from 1989–90 to 1991–92—grants of 1·8, 2 and 2 per cent. respectively should be made. In other words, while inflation as measured by the RPI will have increased by 30 per cent. in the period, and the total subvention by the Government to the Arts Council raised by nearly 24 per cent., the Royal National theatre's grant will have increased by a mere 7·3 per cent. over the same five-year period.
In the last two years, the theatre survived its real reduction in subsidy through a number of methods—by continued excellent housekeeping, by holding pay awards down to the movement of the RPI, by keeping high audience attendance targets, by holding back capital expenditure and building costs—a policy which cannot be continued indefinitely, given the cracks and corrosion and the necessities for renovation that are now all too apparent —by implementing the recommendations of the Rayner report and by exceptional receipts from the exploitation of productions such as "Amadeus", "Single Spies", and "A View from the Bridge" in the West End and the United States, and from the film and video sales of the productions.
The theatre also generated new private sector income from sponsorship and patronage—£400,000 two years ago, with a target of nearly £1 million this year. Those achievements enabled the Royal National theatre to build up a fallback reserve, but the continued erosion of the theatre's grant led inexorably to a budgeted deficit for 1988–89 and the virtual elimination of the reserves by March 1989.
The three-year funding budget which the theatre submitted was based on an average inflation rate throughout of 5 per cent. a year, but that now looks too low. The board can balance its budget for the current year only by a series of undesirable devices: by cutting the artistic programmes to a level which puts at risk expectations from the box office—a counter-productive way of proceeding—and by increasing the target for private sector funding to about double that achieved in the previous year—and that, in a market place heavily crowded by arts organisations chasing sponsorship, is an optimistic assumption. It is the view of the board that it would now be unrealistic to rely on private sources as a means of making good the shortfall, by including a rate of inflation that is now out of date and by continuing to hold back capital projects.
Annual building running costs payable by the company, which does not own the building but occupies it on a 21-day licence from the South Bank theatre board, are currently £3 million. Substantial contingent liabilities

579
on necessary capital expenditure, against which the Royal National theatre company has no reserves, have now built up. Those are dangerous procedures in terms of prudent long-term management and a board of directors with limited liability.
Two years ago, the theatre was forced by Lambeth council, under threat of closure, to refurbish and re-equip the main kitchen. At that time, there were reserves, but it could not take such action today. I do not need to remind the House of the closure of the Cottesloe theatre in 1985.
The present budget also assumes the maximum possible award under the incentive funding scheme. I know that the board would like an assurance that the maximum sum 0allowable, of £250,000, will be available over the next two years. The budget submitted probably could not be met without a substantial fall in the general rate of inflation.
In addition, the theatre is under serious pressure from the unions. At the moment, claims are at the rate of 25 per cent. from the musicians, 32 per cent. from equity stage management, 14·5 per cent. from equity actors and 15 per cent. from the Broadcasting and Entertainment Trades Alliance. Following the theatre's policy of linking pay awards to the rate of inflation when it was low over the past few years, rates in the outside market are now higher, and the theatre faces the risk of losing valued staff and industrial unrest.
The nature of a theatre's business is unpredictable. Running a £17 million operation with no realisable assets, with an overdraft facility limited to £150,000 and no reserves, is a hazardous exercise. The budget for 1989–90 is based on revenue assumptions which are necessarily uncertain, and very much on the high side. The inflation assumptions are no longer valid and the reduction in the artistic programme may well put at risk the box office income. It is the considered view of Richard Eyre and David Aukin that any further cuts in the programme could lead to a spiral, in which diminishing activities were followed by diminishing financial returns. The House cannot contemplate such a prospect with equanimity.
By penalising the success of the Royal National theatre in increasing its box office returns and its sponsorship by reducing grants in real terms, the Arts Council is not only abandoning the daring and skill of those who make the National theatre work, but threatening the theatre's very existence. The Royal National theatre lives on a financial knife edge. If, by cutting back on educational and production expenditure, the sale of seats should fall, the council will have started the theatre on that downward spiral from which it will be difficult to recover.
Elsewhere in his valedictory introduction, Lord Rees-Mogg says:
"the Arts Council is proud of its traditional commitment to judgment by peers. Our panels, boards and committees are well-stocked with distinguished representatives from the arts professions. Their advice, although central, is not sufficient. The voice of the public must also be given due weight. This is the fundamental reason why I support the Council's objective to reduce the Art World's reliance on State subsidy to lower the proportion, not of course the absolute amount, of grant, to the overall turnover of arts organisations. The way in which the public discriminates is through its willingness to pay for its pleasure."
The National theatre has passed that test with flying colours. Every night of the week, 52 weeks of the year, the National theatre puts 2,300 seats for sale in the market place and depends for its survival on the sale of at least 1,750 of them. Box office receipts have increased by 20 per
580
cent in the past 18 months and it is extremely short-sighted that such success should be met with a withdrawal, in real terms, of its funding.
Elsewhere in the Arts Council report, Mr. Luke Rittner writes:
"there is one constant factor in every annual report of the Arts Council, and it is money. It almost goes without saying that we believe that the Government will see huge benefits if it decided to increase its investment in the Arts. We shall certainly continue to put that case to the Government."
He goes on to say:
"no-one on the Council wants to see the National companies held back, nor do we want to stifle the Arts in the Metropolis. However, unless there were a dramatic increase in overall funding, it is difficult to see how we can ever really get the balance more equitable."
What is needed is an increase in the grant for the next three years. The company is not asking to be feather-bedded—far from it. It is proving itself in box-office terms and hopes to continue to do so. It has a very ambitious target of sponsorship, and keeps a close eye on costs, but it has to recover lost ground, invest in fabric and amenities—the lavatories have been described as a public disgrace—and improve revenues from front-of-the-house sales. Failing this, the Royal National theatre will be headed for insolvency and closure.
Although this may sound over-dramatic, I should remind the House that in 1985 Lord Rayner concluded a report, following the Coopers and Lybrand investigation into the theatre's affairs, in which he said:
"it would be a mistake if Government and the Arts Council were to use the evidence and conclusion of this Report to contain or reduce further its funding of the National theatre…continuing Government funding at or above its present level in real terms will in my view be essential".
That authoritative view has not been heeded and the theatre is that much nearer to the brink of a grave financial crisis. I urge my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to this matter in his discussion with the Arts Council on the funding of the theatre.
I am not here suggesting radical solutions such as direct funding of the Royal National theatre, the dismemberment of the Arts Council, or even the privatisation of the South Bank theatre board. What I am suggesting is that a highly prized national institution should not be put at risk, contrary to the advice of the Rayner report, by a real reduction in core funding at a time when a substantial increase would yield enormous dividends, both financial and artistic.
It is healthy that earnings from private sector income now play a larger part in turnover of arts organizations than in the past. I pay tribute to the role my right hon. Friend has played in helping to bring that about. I also pay tribute to his introduction of incentive funding and the introduction of three-year funding, which is a significant development. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, it is now in some jeopardy, at least in the case of the Royal National theatre. I applaud the fact that the Government have increased expenditure on the arts by 33 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years, and on the performing arts by 13 per cent., but I agree with Lord Rees-Mogg and Mr. Rittner that only a dramatic increase in overall funding will bring about the massive artistic dividends for the country which both he, I am sure, and the whole House would wish to see. I think, too, that he would see enormous political dividends from such action. That is not a wholly unworthy consideration.

581
Lord Rees-Mogg said in his valediction that the voice of the public must be given due weight. I believe that the public, as represented in this House tonight, would give a massive endorsement were my right hon. Friend to bring about a further substantial increase in funding for the arts —an increase which in absolute terms would be minuscule in relation to overall Government expenditure, but which would be of great significance to the future of the arts in this country, not least the Royal National theatre.
I shall leave the House and the Arts Council with some lines from "Expresso Bongo", which I remember hearing sung a quarter of a century ago by the present director of the Royal National theatre, in the role of Bongo Herbert —drum beats echoing between the bridges and banks of the River Cam as now they might from the Thames to Piccadilly:
"Oh, oh, oh, don't sell me down the river
If you wanna throw your baby overboard
Then you're gonna have to answer to the Lord. Remember, rivers keep on flowin'
Down on a one way tide,
And some day that's where you'll be goin'
If you take me for a ride."
Later in the libretto come the softer tones of Maisie:
"You're the one who can make me or break me
Don't shake me off your tree
For once in your life, take me
Seriously, I mean seriously."
10.33 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on taking this opportunity to debate the arts and, more particularly, the Royal National theatre, and on the way in which, with his tremendous knowledge of the subject, he expressed his views and anxieties about it.
I am glad to say that this is the third debate of an artistic nature since March of this year. I am also glad my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was able to be here and to intervene. I shall deal with the Royal National theatre in a moment, but it is important to view the position of any one company in the context of Government support for the arts as a whole.
It is our policy to keep up the level of central Government support for the arts—indeed, we have done better; the Arts Council's grant is up by 13 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1988–89—and to create the conditions in which the arts can develop by attracting additional funds from other sources. Our overall objective is to increase funding by improving self reliance. The Government have encouraged a range of initiatives to help bring that about. In 1984, for example, we launched the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has now brought in more than £25 million in new money and has attracted 1,000 new sponsors. I presented the 1,000th award in Scotland this week. We have made extra funds available to the Arts Council for its incentive funding scheme, which encourages subsidised bodies to become more self reliant in their development and growth. In its first year the scheme is expected to bring about £13.5 million of new private sector money into the arts, plus £3 million from the Government—a 3:1 ratio, rather than the 2:1 ratio demanded by the scheme.
582
The cornerstone of my policy is the need to increase access to excellence in the arts. To that end, I asked the Arts Council to earmark a certain proportion of its grant to increase touring in the regions. Its new Great Britain touring fund financed more than 60 weeks of extra touring, including 38 weeks of drama, in its first year. I am glad to see that the Royal National theatre has an ambitious touring programme and has an increased emphasis on access through education.
An important part of the Arts Council's strategy has been to shift more resources from London to the regions. I accept the implication of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury that it is difficult for the Arts Council to get that balance right. The council has devolved more of its money and responsibilities to the 12 English regional arts associations. The council's grant to the regional arts associations has doubled in real terms since 1979–80. Expenditure on directly funded Arts Council clients in the regions has increased considerably. However, we must not—and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not—assume that all centres of excellence are in London. We have a vast range of centres of excellence in the regions —for example, the Welsh national opera, the Edencourt theatre in Inverness, the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra and the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, to name just a few.
I now turn to the Royal National theatre. I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said. I am aware that this great theatre faces a number of pressures and problems, which my hon. Friend highlighted so carefully. However, I will re-emphasise and reinforce what my hon. Friend said about its achievements. The Royal National theatre's policy is to present to a high standard and within a balanced programme classic, new and neglected plays from the whole world of drama. I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the theatre. Since its formation in 1963, the company has won 134 awards, which is more than any other theatre company. It was fitting that the theatre be granted the "royal" prefix in October 1988 to commemorate its 25th anniversary. The RNT consistently plays to 80 per cent. of its capacity, which is a remarkably high average. More than 700,000 people saw the company in 1987–88. The RNT's recent productions, under the excellent chairmanship of Lady Soames, and the outstanding management and direction of Richard Eyre and David Aukin, have been of a very high standard. I saw an excellent performance of Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler" there last week, and I remember seeing a superb performance of "The Winter's Tale" in Georgia, performed in plain clothes because the costumes had gone astray amid Soviet bureaucracy. That standard of excellence cannot be achieved without leadership from the top and commitment from every member of staff—from the stagehands to the front-of-house staff.
The theatre receives its grant in aid—more than £8 million this year—from the Arts Council; 51 per cent. of its income comes from private sources. I congratulate the theatre on the launch of its endowment fund initiated by Lord Rayne, the previous chairman. I operate under the arm's-length principle, which has been adopted by successive Governments since the war. I believe that it is essential that the allocation of specific grants and judgments of artistic merit should continue to be taken at arm's-length. The Arts Council exists to distance such decisions from political considerations. That is as it should be. Governments and civil servants should not be arbiters

583
of taste and Arts Ministers must not allow their own artistic inclinations to govern their policies. Let me also make it plain that no one should assume an automatic right to an increase in grant or a certain level of grant. Judgments must be made on merit by the Arts Council and, of course, the regional arts associations.
I see no need to change the present arrangement whereby all the subsidised arts bodies are funded by the Arts Council. Moreover, the terms of reference of the Wilding review of the structure of arts funding make it plain that the arm's-length policy will continue.
The three-year funding has laid new foundations for long-term strategies, which apply to the Royal National theatre as well. Its introduction in 1987—88 included an 8·5 per cent. increase in the Arts Council grant that year and a 17 per cent. increase over the three years to 1990–91. I am fully aware, however, of the problems and pressures imposed by inflation. It is important to remember that it affects everyone, not just the arts organisations. It is, therefore, essential for the Government to defeat inflation, which remains a top priority.
It is for the Arts Council to determine how it should allocate its funds. In recent years the council's priority has been to devolve resources and responsibilities to the regions. I know that Peter Palumbo, the new chairman of the council, is well aware of the particular problems of the national companies, some of our flagships of artistic excellence—the Royal Opera house, the English national opera, the Royal Shakespeare company and the Royal National theatre. Incidentally I look forward to visiting the RNT in July to meet the staff. I know that the theatre is concerned, as always, to achieve the most excellent
584
productions that provide access to the most number of people—the goal of all of us concerned with the arts. It is wrong to assume that it is not possible to reconcile excellence with improving access to the public. Both must be achieved.
I believe that people in all parts of the country have a right to the best of the arts. That is why my hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of touring. The tours undertaken by our great centres of excellence, such as the RNT, are important because people in different parts of the country are thus able to see the greatness of that theatre.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, for airing the concerns of the RNT. of the trusteeship and of the chairman and for clearly putting to me some of the problems that the theatre currently faces.
I take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that I will draw his concerns to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council, Mr. Palumbo. I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing attention to the increasingly important role not only of the theatre, but of the arts as more a nd more people enjoy them.
Because of the RNT and the rest of the arts, I believe that we can look to the 1990s with optimism—despite the pressures that the arts currently face—especially as more and more people realise that the quality of their lives can be improved by the excellence of British arts.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consequences would ensue for the United Kingdom economy and United Kingdom citizens in the event of sterling joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system and what would be the necessary changes in public policy.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on 8 May, at column 318.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether value added tax is charged on Ministry of Defence purchases from the United States of America which are delivered direct to British forces in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  United Kingdom VAT is not applicable to such purchases. By virtue of international agreements, German VAT is not charged.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much advertising air time Her Majesty's Treasury purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service (Discipline)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the effects on discipline in the Civil Service of the practice of officials sanctioning the unauthorised release of official information other than through conventional channels without prior explicit ministerial consent.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Court of Auditors
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the procedure for considering the annual reports of the Court of Auditors; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The annual reports of the Court of Auditors are discussed each year at the Economic and Finance Council in line with a procedure which the United Kingdom was instrumental in securing.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teaching Vacancies (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of teaching vacancies at educational establishments in the Bolton education authority area; and what categories of subject the vacancies fall into.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In January 1989 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 10 full-time teacher vacancies in nursery and primary schools maintained by bolton local education authority—one in the nursery, five in the infant and four in the junior age group.

  At the same date there was one full-time teacher vacancy (in English) in maintained secondary schools.

  No information is available regarding vacancies in other educational establishments.

  Open University
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the outcome of the latest meeting of the visiting committee of the Open university in terms of evaluation of the future course profile and financial stability of the university.

  Mr. Jackson
  At its latest meeting on 13 and 14 April the Open university visiting committee began its consideration of the university's programmes and financial forecasts. It will complete its assessment, and report to my right hon. Friend in the summer.

  Volunteer Youth Workers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has made to the letter of 7 March from the chairman of Warwickshire association of youth clubs, Mrs. B. E. Winstanley, about grant aid for the training of volunteer youth workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department sent a reply to Mrs. Winstanley on May 10. A copy of the reply has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost of
  247
  maintenance grants paid to part-time students in each of the past 10 years in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms with 1979 = 100.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the projected cost of maintenance grants to be paid to part-time students in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information which would be required to provide such a projection is not collected centrally.

  College Lecturers (School Teachers)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage college lecturers to become school teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Last October the Department published a discussion paper on the staffing implications of projected student numbers in LEA-maintained FE colleges in England. That paper suggested that local education authorities should consider redeploying suitably qualified surplus FE lecturers to teach shortage subjects in schools. Under the proposed licensed teacher scheme, FE lecturers with two years' experience will become eligible for qualified teacher status after one year's service as a licensed teacher instead of two as will be the case generally.

  Incentive Allowances
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend of 5 May,Official Report, column 256, that no further information is at present available, what further information he intends to collect in relation to awards of incentive allowances, for each school or financial year since 30 September 1987; when and by what means he intends to collect such further information; if he will estimate the date or dates of publication of such further information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The database of teacher records will provide detailed information on an annual basis about the numbers of teachers in receipt of incentive allowances. The first such data, showing the position in March 1988, are likely to become available early next year.

  University Statistical Record
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he collects information from, or has access to, the University Statistical Record.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has no direct access to the University Statistical Record. Given prior notice, the USR can on occasions supply information not available in published reports, although details of individual institutions normally remain confidential.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Citizens Imprisoned Abroad
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the figures for 248
  each of the last five years for which records are available of the numbers of British citizens imprisoned abroad who returned to this country within that year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state for the last year for which figures are available how many British citizens imprisoned abroad received(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and (e) more than four visits from consular officials.

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

  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report all those consular posts which have a local benevolent fund or charity on which they can draw for buying extra food, soap, and so on for British citizens imprisoned abroad, stating against each (a) the total drawn for each of the last five years for which figures are available and (b) the total amount available from each source in this financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Many of our consular posts around the world have access to local benevolent funds. Such funds exist purely due to private donations. Since public funds are not involved we do not keep a central list. The funds also vary enormously in their extent and purpose as well as the degree to which consular posts may draw on them.

  Lorrain Esme Osman
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the issue in Hong Kong on 30 November 1985 of a warrant for the arrest of Lorrain Esme Osman, and the quashing of the warrant by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal on 4 May 1989 on the grounds that it was vitiated by bias.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the relevant authorities in Hong Kong and for the courts here.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of Liberia in respect of Lorrain Esme Osman; whether Mr. Osman has diplomatic immunity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been an exchange of notes with the Liberian Government through its embassy in London about Mr. Osman's appointment as Liberian ambassador-at-large to the European Community and his status in the United Kingdom. It is for the courts to decide whether Mr. Osman has any diplomatic immunity, in accordance with the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the facts presented to them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Masks (Israel)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why his Department is refusing an export licence to allow gas masks to be sold to Israel for purely defensive purposes.
  249
  Mr. Alan Clark
  No application has been received for a licence to export gas masks to Israel.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population Control
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications were received for 1989 for allocations through the

  Agency and country

  Project name

  Requested 1989–90 £

  Requested 1990–91 £

  Requested 1991–92 £

  Requested 1992–93 £

  Requested 1993–94 £

  Accepted

  Marie Stopes International

  Kenya

  Extension of Family Planning Education and Service Programme for National Youth Service

  96,957

  52,599

  101,490

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  Creating a Corps of Village-based Family Planning Educators and Motivator

  41,269

  33,205

  35,652

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  Lahore reproductive health extension services

  22,844

  24,270

  25,540

  —

  —

  Population Concern

  Bangladesh

  Chittagong Family Planning

  32,820

  36,360

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  Development of Manual for Training Rural Women Development Agents

  39,670

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  Family Planning through Community Institutions

  21,535

  23,565

  23,835

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  Training for Womens Development

  24,835

  25,985

  28,240

  —

  —

  Totals

  279,930

  195,984

  214,757

  —

  —

  Rejected

  Marie Stopes International

  Haiti

  Condom Social Marketing

  36,355

  44,110

  39,935

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  Combat Aids

  252,080

  352,835

  208,454

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  National Family Planning Radio Education/endorsement Programme

  53,793

  53,397

  53,882

  —

  —

  Totals

  342,228

  450,342

  302,271

  —

  —

  Under consideration

  Marie Stopes International

  Ethiopia

  Maternal and Reproductive Health Clinic

  114,473

  91,500

  91.476

  —

  —

  India

  Comprehensive Family Planning and Preventive Health Service for employees

  69,806

  73,382

  73,382

  —

  —

  India

  Contraceptive Social Marketing

  57,843

  63,627

  64,206

  —

  —

  India

  Marketing Educational Family Planning Materials

  85,000

  85,000

  85,000

  —

  —

  India

  Soap Drama

  26,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  Work based Maternal and Child Health and Family planning

  45,171

  33,668

  30,544

  —

  —

  Population Concern

  Caribbean

  Family Planning Motivational video Series

  40,158

  50,098

  44,374

  —

  —

  Nepal

  Newalparasi Womens Development Project

  36,880

  52,635

  42,555

  34,300

  29,590

  Totals

  475,831

  449,910

  431,537

  34,300

  29,590

  Application withdrawn by Agency

  Marie Stopes International

  Africa

  Health Education Family Planning film

  18,245

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations received allocations from the joint funding scheme for population and family planning projects for each of the years 1987 and 1988; what amounts were allocated to each organisation; and for what purposes.

  Agency and country

  Project name

  Spent in 1987–88 £

  Spent in 1988–89 £

  Under offer for 1989–90 £

  Under offer for 1990–91 £

  Under offer for 1991–92 £

  Africa Now Marie Stopes International

  Kenya

  Chogoria Family Planning Programme

  —

  10,300

  9,213

  8,358

  11,182

  Bangladesh

  Family Planning, preventative health care

  23,550

  23,793

  52,868

  —

  —

  250
  joint funding scheme for population and family planning projects; what these applications were and from which organisations; how many and which were accepted; and what amounts were allocated to each organisation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information is maintained by financial year rather than calendar year. Details of the population and family planning project applications which have been received under the joint funding scheme for the current financial year, 1989–90, and following years are:

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information is maintained by financial year rather than calendar year. Details of the population and family planning projects which have been supported under the joint funding scheme in the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 are:
  251

  Agency and country

  Project name

  Spent in 1987–88

  Spent in 1988–89

  Under offer for 1989–90

  Under offer for 1990–91

  Under offer for 1991–92

  India

  Brass Tacks Family Planning Programme

  13,550

  39,537

  71,700

  —

  —

  Kenya

  National Youth Service

  11,000

  22,369

  41,950

  —

  —

  Malawi

  Health Programme for poor women and families

  —

  47,910

  42,550

  32,257

  —

  Mexico

  Family Planning Leon

  21,038

  13,525

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  Provision of Maternal Health and Family Planning Services

  8,427

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  Youth Fertility Education Programme

  16,174

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  Family Planning Educators and Motivators

  —

  —

  37,244

  45,049

  45,049

  Swaziland

  Male Oriented Family Planning

  6,000

  23,772

  49,430

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  Training Programme Zimbabwe Association of Womens Clubs

  —

  23,793

  23,840

  31,650—

  —

  Oxfam Population Concern

  Pakistan

  Family Planning Project

  —

  2,825

  —

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  Family Planning Health and Education

  15,876

  18,429

  —

  —

  —

  Caribbean

  Two workshops for Family Planning personnel Antigua

  —

  25,754

  30,928

  —

  —

  Caribbean

  Towards accreditation sex education in Caribbean schools

  —

  23,820

  51,861

  38,569

  —

  Caribbean

  Two workshops for teachers

  —

  41,592

  44,665

  —

  —

  Caribbean

  Three workshops Family Planning Fieldworkers

  —

  23,117

  24,784

  25,512

  —

  Ethiopia

  Training rural women development agents

  17,051

  55,027

  42,240

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  Construction of Mauritius Family Planning Association building

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  Nepal

  Three micro projects in Nepal

  6,150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  Non Government Organisation Workshops on Population Policy

  34,682

  —

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  Fiji

  Family Planning

  —

  5,500

  33,000

  —

  —

  Totals

  173,498

  404,063

  556,273

  181,395

  56,231

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions for 1989 are being made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the World Health Organisation's special programme on human reproduction.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have made the following pledges for 1989:

  International Planned Parenthood Federation:
  £6·75 million (including £0·5 million for AIDS prevention programme);
  United Nations Population Fund:

  £5·5 million:
  World Health Organisation's special programme on human reproduction: £2·2 million.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list bilateral disbursements for population and family planning activities in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, classified by project and country.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration funded the following population-related projects in 1987:

  Bangladesh
  World Bank Third Population and Family Health Project (825,000)

  Botswana
  Public Health and Primary Nurse Tutor (£20,000)

  Fiji
  Population Census (£15,000)

  The Gambia
  Provision of family planning materials (£2,000)

  India
  Orissa Family Welfare Project Phase I (£566,000) Integrated Family Welfare Gujarat (£8,000)
  252
  Assistance to the Registrar General's Office (£18,000)

  Kiribati
  Population Census (£4,000)

  Malawi
  Population Census (£62,000

  Malaysia
  Adviser in Demography (£52,000)

  Nepal
  ODA/UNFPA Project (Pilot Operational Research in Community Based Family Planning/Mother and Child Health Activities (£2,000)

  Pakistan
  Population Welfare Projects I and II (141,000)

  Tanzania
  Family Planning Study (02,000)
  Population Census (£6,000)

  In addition, the provision of family planning services formed part of a large number of primary health care projects and programmes in which we were involved. The Overseas Development Administration also provided £78,000 under its research and development programme for population-related work.

  Disbursement figures for 1988 and 1989 are not yet available. The following projects were under way or were approved in 1988 and 1989:

  Bangladesh
  World Bank Third Population and Family Health Project

  Botswana
  Public Health and Family Planning Tutor

  Fiji
  Assistance to Population Census

  India
  Orissa Family Welfare Project phases I and II
  Integrated Family Welfare Project Gujarat
  Population components in Slum Improvement Projects (Hyderabad, Indore and Vijayawada)
  Assistance to the Registrar General's Office

  Kenya
  World Bank Third Population Project
  Population Census
  253
  Kiribati
  Population Census

  Malawi
  Population Census

  Malaysia
  Adviser in Demography (Economic Planning Unit)

  Nepal
  Population Studies

  Pakistan
  Population Welfare Projects I and II
  Reproduction Health Services Project

  Tanzania
  Population Census

  In 1987, 29 trainees came to the United Kingdom on population-related courses. In 1988 a further 37 trainees began similar courses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pornography
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations about the increase in pornographic books and magazines in circulation; whether he is giving consideration to a more effective definition of obscenity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We receive correspondence about a number of aspects of our controls on obscene material. The Government have supported recent attempts to strengthen the test of obscenity in the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and have strengthened the controls on child pornography. Attempts to change the 1959 Act have not yet commanded the support of Parliament.

  Car Pound (Metropolitan Police)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to whether maximum use and benefit is currently being derived from the Metropolitan police car pound at Calthorpe street, London WC1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that although the car pound at Calthorpe street WCI has not yet been used to full capacity it is regarded as an important acquisition, allowing the Metropolitan police scope for expansion of their removal operations and providing additional space which may be required in the event of closure of other car pounds.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update his Department's 1982 research into electoral registration entitled "Electoral Registration in 1981".

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1981 study was based on replies to questions included in the post-enumeration survey following the 1981 census. Parliament will be informed of any proposal, in the light of consideration in due course, to include similar questions in the post-enumeration survey following the 1991 census.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated turnover of off-course betting on greyhound racing for 1989.
  254
  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office is not in a position to make an estimate of the proportion of off-course betting attributable to greyhound racing.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will announce if there will be an inquiry into greyhound racing finances;

  (2) how many representations he has received in favour of an inquiry into greyhound racing finances.

  Mr. John Patten
  Between November 1988, when the British Greyhound Racing Board launched a campaign for an inquiry into the finances of greyhound racing (and of horseracing) and their relationship to off-course betting, and 15 May, we have received 13 letters from Members of Parliament in support of or asking about such an inquiry. In addition, in that period there have been two earlier questions asking if such an inquiry is to be established, and early-day motion 185, which calls on the Government to undertake a"wider inquiry into off-course bookmaking and the feasibility of a levy for greyhound racing".

  In his reply on 22 March to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), my right hon. Friend said that he would announce his conclusion on the recommendation from the Government-appointed members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board that there should be an inquiry into the long-term funding of racing when he had received and considered advice from Lloyds merchant bank as to the feasibility of privatising the Horserace Totalisator Board. Whether or not the financing of greyhound racing should be included in such an inquiry is among the considerations which my right hon. Friend is taking into account.

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give instructions to all electoral returning officers that every polling station should have reasonable access for disabled people, including those in wheelchairs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 6 April 1989, at column 738.

  Remand
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period during the past 20 years for which a person has been held in custody on remand; and who currently on remand has been held for the longest time.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about the longest periods held on remand during the last 20 years is not available centrally. On 31 March 1989 one unconvicted prisoner had been held in Pentonville prison for more than three years having been committed to custody pending completion of extradition proceedings. An indication of the length of time spent in prison service establishments by persons received on remand is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (tables 2.3, 2.4 of the latest issue, for 1987, Cm. 547), copies of which are in the Library.

  Lorrain Esme Osman
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long Lorrain Esme Osman, currently held in Her Majesty's prison, Pentonville, has been in custody; what grounds there are for Mr. Osman's continued detention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Osman has been in custody since 7 December 1985. He was committed in custody by Bow street magistrates court on I June 1987 to await the Home Secretary's order for his surrender to the Hong Kong authorities under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. Since then his surrender has been repeatedly deferred pending the outcome of applications for writs of habeas corpus and related appeals.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the request for extradition received from Hong Kong accompanying a warrant of arrest dated 30 November 1985 in respect of Lorrain Esme Osman.

  Mr. John Patten
  The request for Mr. Osman's extradition has been considered by the courts. The information provided to the courts in accordance with the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 included the arrest warrant and supporting documents. It is not the practice to publish other communications about extradition cases.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to order Lorrain Esme Osman to be returned to Hong Kong until the English courts have completed their consideration of the effect of the decision by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal on 4 May 1989 quashing a warrant dated 30 November 1985 on the grounds that it was vitiated by bias; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 my right hon. Friend cannot order the return of a fugitive until any proceedings challenging the committal for surrender by the Bow street magistrates, whether by way of an application for habeas corpus or an appeal arising from such an application, have been concluded.

  Police (Deaths)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in England and Wales have lost their lives in the course of their duty in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of police officers in England and Wales who were killed in the course of duty during each of the past five years is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  15

  1985

  7

  1986

  9

  1987

  11

  1988

  2

  In each of the years 1987 and 1988 one officer in addition to the above figures lost his life as a result of responding to criminal action while off duty.

  Passports
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received during 1989 about delays in the renewal of passports held by United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received about 250 letters of complaint about delays at the passport offices since the beginning of the year. Not all of these related specifically to applications for renewal or replacement of an existing passport.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Beverley of 15 May, what he treats as legitimate uses to which electronic surveillance listening devices may be put as distinct from television-based devices.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Younger report on privacy referred to the use of equipment for aural surveillance in investigative and documentary journalism and in the observation of patients by hospital staff.

  Firearms (Amendment) Act
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the remaining provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Hurd
  I signed a commencement order on 17 May 1989 which will bring into effect the remaining provisions of the Act as follows:

  Sections coming into force on 1 July 1989

  Section 2

  (Re-definition of exempted shotguns)

  Section 3

  (Grant and renewal of shotgun certificates)

  Section 4

  (Transfers of shotgun)

  Section 5

  (Restriction on sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns)

  Section 6

  (Shortening of barrels)

  Sections 7(2) and 7(3)

  (Conversion of weapon to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies not to affect classification)

  Section 11

  (Grant of co-terminous certificates)

  Section 13(1)

  (Firearms dealers)

  Section 15

  (Rifle and pistol clubs)

  Section 19

  (Firearms and ammunition in museums)

  Section 20

  (Removal of arms and ammunition to Northern Ireland)

  Section 23(4)

  (Minor and consequential amendments)

  23(5)

  23(6)

  Section 24(2)

  (Expenses and receipts)

  Sections coming into force on 1 October 1989

  Section 17

  (Visitors' permits)

  Section 18

  (Firearms acquired for export)

  Section 23(8)

  (Repeal of section 14 of the 1968 Act)

  Transitional arrangements have been made to allow owners of smooth-bore guns raised to section I control a period of seven months—from 1 July 1989 to 31 January 1990—in which to comply with the new controls. During this time they will have a number of options open to them. If they wish to retain the weapon in its existing condition they may apply for a firearm certificate, or a variation to an existing one, subject to the criteria laid down in the Firearms Act 1968 being met. They may continue to hold the gun on a shotgun certificate by adapting it so that it has

  257
  a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges in the manner approved under section 2(3) of the Act. Or they may arrange to have it de-activated. Alternatively, the weapon may be sold to a registered firearms dealer or to the holder of a section 1 firearm certificate who is authorised to acquire it.

  Immigration
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made regarding allowing Fiore, an Italian citizen, to remain in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: In 1981 the Italian Government requested the extradition of Mr. Fiore for a number of offences, but the request failed in the courts because a prime facie case could not be established. No further request has been received from the Italian Government for his extradition. When the extradition provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are brought into force later this year the United Kingdom will be able to ratify the European convention on extradition, which does not impose a prime facie requirement.

  Consideration has also been given to Mr. Fiore's deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971. Under Community law, a Community national working here can be deported on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In accordance with case law established by the European Court, however, it would be necessary to have evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy. Mr. Fiore has been interviewed by officers of the immigration department of the Home Office, but the evidence available does not meet the strict criteria for deportation required under European law.

WALES

  Administrative and Clerical Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received concerning the pay of administrative and clerical staff in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision there is in Wales for student nurses, whose first language is Welsh, to study for nursing qualifications; and if he will list those schools of nursing in Wales who provide training for nurses whose first language is Welsh.

  Mr. Grist
  For individuals in Wales to register and practise as a nurse they must obtain qualifications prescribed by the United Kingdom central council for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. Registration enables nurses to practise anywhere in the United Kingdom. Student nurses in Wales are therefore trained solely through the medium of English.

  Polytechnic of Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his intentions regarding the future funding and status of the Polytechnic of Wales.
  258
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Polytechnic of Wales will continue to be funded from the higher education quantum on the advice of the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education. If it acquires corporate status as a limited company it will become an assisted, rather than a maintained, institution, but its funding arrangements would not change. The question of the polytechnic acquiring corporate status in this way is a matter for Mid Glamorgan county council as the maintaining local education authority.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for improvement of community dental services; what additional resources he is making available to district health authorities for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office officials will be discussing community dental services with officers of district health authorities in order to assess the adequacy of current levels of provision in the light of the recently issued circular WHC(89)28 entitled "The Future Development of Community Dental Services".

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there is any cash limit on the central Government resources available to housing associations in Wales for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  There is currently no technical cash limit on central Government resources available to housing associations in Wales, but I determine each year the allocation within which Housing for Wales must plan its development programme.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the two recent changes in the staff of his Department responsible for mental health provision were post deletions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and value of regional selective assistance applications in Wales in(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number and value of regional selective assistance applications received by my Department was as follows:

  Year

  1Number of applications

  Value of grant applied for (£ million)

  1987–88

  198

  68

  1988–89

  267

  135

  1 RSA project and training grants

  NHS (Complaints)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints he has received about the National Health Service in Wales in the calendar years of(a) 1986, (b) 1987, and (c)

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and value of regional development grant applications in Wales for(a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87, (c) 1987–88 and (d) 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of applications received by my Department under the revised regional development grant scheme (RDG II) and the related project expenditure were as follows:

  Year

  1Number of applications

  2Related project expenditure (£ million)

  1985–86

  952

  169

  1986–87

  1,640

  351

  1987–88

  3,438

  1,567

  1 The RDG II scheme closed to new applications on 31 March 1988. Ineligible applications received subsequent to that date have been excluded from the answer.

  2 The related project expenditure represents the capital expenditure forecast to be incurred by applicants on projects toward which grant is sought. An RDG II applicant is not required to state the value of grant applied for.

  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the inflation-adjusted expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales per year over each of the last 10 years up to the year ending March 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Total National Health Service gross expenditure

  Year

  1£ million

  1979–80

  904·7

  1980–81

  982·0

  1981–82

  1,018·6

  1982–83

  1,048·9

  1983–84

  1,064·1

  1984–85

  1,096·1

  1985–86

  1,109·7

  1986–87

  1,154·3

  1987–88

  1,219·0

  1988–89

  1,273·7

  1 Actual expenditure has been adjusted for the effect of general inflation by using the gross domestic product market price deflator, brought to a 1988–89 price base.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the figures for perinatal mortality in Wales for each year since 1979, in a form statistically comparable to those produced elsewhere in western Europe.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of registered perinatal deaths and the perinatal mortality rates for Wales since 1979 are given in the following table:
  260

  Perinatal deaths in Wales

  Year

  1Number

  2Rate

  1979

  569

  15·6

  1980

  483

  12·8

  1981

  508

  14·1

  1982

  400

  11·1

  1983

  405

  11·3

  1984

  380

  10·5

  1985

  378

  10·2

  1986

  384

  10·3

  1987

  351

  9·2

  1 The number of registered stillbirths and deaths within the first week of life.

  2 Perinatal deaths per 1,000 total (ie live and still births).

  Source:OPCS.

  Precise data comparability with countries outside the United Kingdom are problematic as the legal requirements of the registration systems vary, as do the recording practices, particularly as regards stillbirth.

  Within the United Kingdom stillbirths of 28 weeks gestation and over should be registered. Lower gestation limits apply in some countries for example France (26 weeks). In other countries a physical measurement of the stillborn is the criterion. For example birthweight of 1,000g or more applies in Federal Republic of Germany and in some countries the criterion is either gestation or physical measurement.

  Talgarth and Crickhowell Bypasses
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be able to publish the final line of route of(a) the Talgarth and (b) the Crickhowell bypass.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Not for some time yet.

  Public consultation on alternative options for a bypass of Talgarth will be undertaken towards the end of the year and a fee competition for the appointment of consultants to undertake a bypass feasibility study for Crickhowell will be held shortly.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales during which year he expects work to commence on(a) the Talgarth and (b) the Crickhowell bypass.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales 1989—Progress and Plans for the 1990's" shows Talgarth bypass for possible start in the medium term period April 1991 to March 1994 and Crickhowell bypass as a long-term scheme unlikely to start before 1994–95. It is not possible to be more precise.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of National Health Service hospitals in each of the Welsh health authority areas for every year from 1979 to the end of 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  A list of hospitals in Wales, up to and including 1987, has been published annually in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales" copies of which are in the Library of the House. During 1988, one hospital—Neath annexe in west Glamorgan—closed and one hospital—Minffordd in Gwynedd—reopened.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated to Tai Cymru for its rural
  261
  housing initiative; and how much of this money will be allocated to each district and borough council area in Wales for 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  No specific allocation has been made to Housing for Wales-Tai Cymru for rural-housing, but I have asked it to maintain its investment in rural areas in line with previous years at around 25 per cent. of its development programme. With regard to detailed allocations by Housing for Wales to district and borough council areas, I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department's water and environmental protection division will now reply to the letters sent on 14 December 1988 and 19 March 1989 to M. Mathews, R. H. Lockyear and P. M. Jones regarding the effects of the Water Bill on the Swansea City Council (Tawe Barrage) Act 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  A letter was sent on Wednesday 17 May.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the average farm income in Wales for each of the last five years for which figures are available and adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Average net income for dairy and livestock farms in Wales for each of the five years since 1983–84 was as follows:

  Year

  Average net income £ per farm

  1982–83

  8,052

  1983–84

  7,562

  1984–85

  6,746

  1985–86

  7,914

  1986–87

  8,509

  On an index basis, and adjusted for inflation, the figures are as follows:

  Year

  1982–83

  100

  1983–84

  92

  1984–85

  79

  1985–86

  84

  1986–87

  81

  1982–83 = 100

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the additional powers poll tax registration officers have to the current rate collection system in terms of access and examination of personal details.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax and there will be no poll tax registration officers.

  World Habitat Day
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what special steps are being taken by his Department to mark World Habitat Day.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following the United Nations General Assembly adoption, in December 1988, of a global strategy for shelter to the year 2000, the Department will be preparing regular national monitoring reports, to be presented on World Habitat Day, on progress towards implementing the global strategy.

  New Towns (Sale of Assets)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the total sum realised by sale of assets by the Commission for the New Towns for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Trippier
  The sums realised by the Commission for the New Towns are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  6·43

  1980–81

  29·61

  1981–82

  61·85

  1982–83

  51·18

  1983–84

  55·25

  1984–85

  57·59

  1985–86

  78·67

  1986–87

  169·31

  1987–88

  216·66

  11988–89

  334·00

  Total

  1,060·55

  1 Provisional.

  Figures are gross, before deduction of selling expenses.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the United Kingdom to meet the Montreal protocol target of a 50 per cent. reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Montreal protocol requires consumption of chlorofluorocarbons to he cut to 50 per cent. of 1986 levels by 1999. We expect this to be achieved within the United Kingdom by the end of this year, 10 years ahead of the protocol timetable.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ban the discharge of raw sewage into the Bristol channel; when he expects these waters will meet EC bathing water standards; and if he will seek a clean water policy for this waterway on the part of both English and Welsh water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  All the English and Welsh water authorities discharging into the Bristol channel have investment programmes to improve the quality of these waters, taking account of the best available technology. It is the Government's policy that all identified bathing waters should meet the standards set in the EC directive as soon as possible.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, in
  263
  descending order, the domestic rate in the pound set by the London boroughs for (i) 1983–84 and (ii) 1989–90, showing for each borough the political control at each date.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:

  Domestic rate poundage and political control in London

  1983–84

  Poundage(P)

  Control at April 1983

  Haringey

  242·5

  Labour

  Southwark

  226·5

  Labour

  Brent

  223·5

  Labour

  Greenwich

  209·1

  Labour

  Islington

  204·6

  Labour

  Lambeth

  201·5

  Labour

  Lewisham

  197·5

  Labour

  Hackney

  196·5

  Labour

  Newham

  189·0

  Labour

  Camden

  188·4

  Labour

  Tower Hamlets

  177·5

  Labour

  Waltham Forest

  169·5

  No control

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  167·2

  No control

  Harrow

  157·0

  Conservative

  Hounslow

  155·5

  Labour

  Bexley

  145·7

  Conservative

  Hillingdon

  145·7

  Conservative

  Havering

  142·0

  Conservative

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  140·3

  No control

  Merton

  140·0

  Conservative

  Barking and Dagenham

  137·5

  Labour

  Barnet

  135·0

  Conservative

  Kensington and Chelsea

  134·4

  Conservative

  Ealing

  133·5

  Conservative

  Enfield

  133·0

  Conservative

  Wandsworth

  130·0

  Conservative

  Sutton

  130·0

  Conservative

  Westminster

  128·6

  Conservative

  Redbridge

  128·5

  Conservative

  Bromley

  127·5

  Conservative

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  122·5

  Conservative

  City of London

  117·0

  Independent

  Croydon

  108·5

  Conservative

  1989–90

  Poundage(P)

  Control at April 1989

  Haringey

  363·4

  Labour

  Brent

  344·5

  Labour

  Newham

  297·6

  Labour

  Hounslow

  253·4

  Labour

  Waltham Forest

  250·8

  Labour

  Greenwich

  247·3

  Labour

  Ealing

  235·0

  Labour

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  234·9

  Labour

  Islington

  224·4

  Labour

  Hillingdon

  223·8

  No control

  Hackney

  218·5

  Labour

  Enfield

  217·0

  Conservative

  Richmond·upon·Thames

  215·0

  Liberal

  Camden

  210·7

  Labour

  Lambeth

  209·4

  Labour

  Sutton

  209·0

  Liberal

  Lewisham

  207·2

  Labour

  Barking and Dagenham

  205·4

  Labour

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  203·2

  Conservative

  Harrow

  200·5

  Conservative

  Bexley

  197·0

  Conservative

  Barnet

  195·2

  Conservative

  Southwark

  193·5

  Labour

  Havering

  184·5

  No control

  Merton

  181·1

  Conservative

  Croydon

  165·0

  Conservative

  Tower Hamlets

  162·0

  Liberal

  Bromley

  161·8

  Conservative

  Redbridge

  159·0

  Conservative

  Westminster

  143·2

  Conservative

  Wandsworth

  142·6

  Conservative

  264

  1989–90

  Poundage(P)

  Control at April 1989

  City of London

  124·9

  Independent

  Kensington and Chelsea

  103·7

  Conservative

  Parkinson Houses
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether an acceptable repair scheme for individual semi-detached Parkinson houses is in prospect.

  Mr. Trippier
  PRC Homes Ltd. licence No. 050 allows for the repair of individual semi-detached Parkinson houses, but access is needed to the adjoining property to carry out works to the party wall. It is for the individual owner of the property to decide whether this is acceptable.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make any changes to his review of the legislation on homelessness as a result of the report published on 8 May by the London Boroughs Association.

  Mr. Trippier
  The review of homelessness legislation is not yet complete: the recommendations in the London Boroughs Association's report will be taken into consideration in drawing up our conclusions.

  Water Authority Employees (Discussions)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given to(a) senior management and (b) other employees of water authorities about the application of the terms of the Financial Services Act to their right to discuss matters relating to the industry.

  Mr. Howard
  Detailed guidelines on the implications of the Financial Services Act 1986 have been given to water authority chairmen. Guidance to their employees is a matter for them.

  Mercury (River Yare)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide in the Official Report the most recent sampling data for medium, mean and maximum values of mercury in fish and eels downstream of the Whitlingham sewage treatment works in the River Yare, Norfolk.

  Mr. Howard
  The most recent analyses of mercury in fish flesh carried out by Anglian water authority were in 1985 and 1986. The results were:

  December 1985

  December 1986

  Sample Fish

  Eels

  Roach and Pike

  Number of Samples

  28

  17

  Mean

  0·48

  0·43

  Maximum (mg/Kg wet flesh)

  1·21

  2·35

  The amount of mercury entering the river has been reduced considerably in recent years, and the concentrations in the water column of the river are now regularly below the limit of detection.

  The improvement can be illustrated by the decline in the concentration of mercury in sediment samples:
  265

  Year

  Mean (mg/Kg)

  1986

  6·5

  1987

  3·2

  1988

  0·5

  A further survey of eels and fish is planned for later this year.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, contrary to the requirements of the EEC bathing water directive 76/160, no bathing waters in the United Kingdom are designated or monitored for directive compliance.

  Mr. Howard
  None of the United Kingdom's inland waters meet the criteria for identification set out in article 1(2)(a) of directive 76/464/EEC.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many United Kingdom bathing waters passed the EEC standards for enteroviruses and salmonella in 1988;

  (2) how many bathing waters in the United Kingdom were monitored for salmonella in 1988; and how many failed the EEC standard for this parameter.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is contained in the reports on the 1988 survey of bathing water quality, which I placed in the Library. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given on 21 February 1989, column 572, and 14 April 1989, column 682.

  Integrated Development Operation Programme
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much allocated aid South Yorkshire and Humberside will lose if funds currently available under the integrated development operation programme of the European Community are shared with other parts of Yorkshire and the north midlands.

  Mr. Chope
  Under new Community regulations the Government are shortly to submit to the European Commission the eastern England regional conversion plan and a decision on this plan is expected from the Commission in October 1989. In the plan, the United Kingdom will be seeking adequate provision for all existing and proposed programmes. I cannot anticipate what the outcome will be.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of the eastern England plan by the European Commission; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which it will delay the projects already earmarked under the integrated development operation programme scheme and affect their financing.

  Mr. Chope
  The eastern England regional conversion plan is being finalised in consultation with the plan partners for submission to the Commission. This plan will propose provision for funding the Yorkshire and Humberside steel area IDO as well as all other existing and proposed programmes and other measures which are eligible for ERDF support.
  266
  I cannot anticipate what the Commission's decision on support will be.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research the Government are sponsoring into the effects of pesticide residues on British wildlife.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of Government grant-aided bodies are undertaking or have commissioned research projects on the effect of pesticide residues on British wildlife. For example, a joint Nature Conservancy Council (NCC)/Vincent Wildlife Trust project on the effects of pesticide residues in otters is being undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE); the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is conducting similar research on the effects on seals, and the NCC has commissioned research from NERC on the effects of pollution on birds.

  I am also advised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently sponsoring a number of projects including:
  Methods of assessing the effects of pesticides on wildlife. Indirect effects of pesticides on wildlife.
  The economic and ecological effect of pest, disease and weed control in intensively produced cereals.
  The ecological and economic effects of pest, disease, weed control and fertiliser inputs in crop rotations.
  Deposition, activity and fate of agrochemicals applied to crops.
  Invertebrate fauna of cereal fields.
  Small mammal studies.
  Cereal pest—predator interactions.
  Spatial and temporal consequences of the effects of insecticides on the non-target invertebrate fauna of winter wheat.

  In addition, pesticides residues in wildlife are monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food working party on pesticide residues and all reported incidents suspected of involving pesticide poisoning in England and Wales are investigated under the wildlife incident scheme.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost of the delivery of the Government's information leaflet on the community charge; how many such leaflets were prepared for delivery; and what was the unit cost of production and delivery.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total cost of production and distribution of the information leaflet on the community charge delivered to households in England is some £950,000, including the cost of display in post offices. A total of 23 million leaflets were produced at a unit cost for production and delivery of 4·1p.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of storing the 21 million leaflets entitled "The Community Charge (The So-called Poll Tax): How It Will Work For You."

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: The Central Office of Information is currently in negotiation with the Post Office, on behalf of my Department, in relation to any additional costs which may have been incurred as a result of the temporary suspension of the household distribution of the community charge leaflet.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation (Housing)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Main Group, Warrington housing association, Manchester and District housing association and the Grosvenor housing association are being paid to manage the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation rented housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  The agency fee was negotiated between the development corporation and the housing associations. The size of the fee is commercially confidential information.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the rent increase imposed on Warrington and Runcorn development corporation tenants will go towards paying the management costs of the housing associations involved in managing the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation rented housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  The rents of tenants of all the English new town development corporations have recently increased. The percentage change of the average rent has been similar in each town. There is no connection between this general increase and the particular decision of the Warrington and Runcorn corporation to change its arrangements for managing its stock.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date Warrington and Runcorn development corporation tenants will be balloted about who their future landlords will be; and if Warrington and Runcorn development corporation will be one of the names on the ballot paper.

  Mr. Trippier
  I can assure tenants that they will be given the opportunity to choose their new landlord at the earliest appropriate time. The provisions in the Local Government and Housing Bill for the transfer of ownership of new town housing enable the local district council and approved landlords to be the new landlords. The development corporation, or its successor the Commission for the New Towns, will not be a choice available to tenants.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that between now and when the ballot is held the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation tenants will not be approached by the consortium of housing associations operating in Warrington under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Kent Structure Plan
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his proposed modifications to the second review of the structure plan for Kent.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend published his proposals today. Copies of his proposals and of the report of the panel which conducted an examination in public into selected matters arising from the review have been placed in the Library.
  268
  The review sets out the county council's policies for development in Kent up to the year 2001. My right hon. Friend supports its main objective, which is to stimulate economic developments in Kent without harming the environment; he also supports its proposals for the growth of Ashford and for increased development of Dartford. As recommended by the panel, he proposes to increase the housing provision for the county up to the year 2001 to more than 89,000 houses, including 57,000 in the 1990s.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he took the proposed high speed rail link from the Channel tunnel to London into his consideration of the second review of the structure plan for Kent.

  Mr. Chope
  No. As the review was submitted before British Rail put forward its proposals for a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel to London, the choice of route was not a matter for this review. It is for the county council to consider the strategic implications of any decision relating to the link and whether any further alterations to the structure plan to take account of this should be put forward in the future.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the capital structure of water plcs to be created at flotation.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to the approval by Parliament of the Water Bill, the Government will put in place new capital structures appropriate for the nominated holding companies in the private sector. This will be done in the run up to flotation and implemented by extinguishing all the national loans fund debt and taking new securities which may consist of both equity and new debt. The assets of the NLF will be reduced accordingly, but the Government will have new assets in the form of securities in the holding companies for England and Wales. The capital structure of each of the holding companies will be determined in the light of the circumstances of that company. It is too soon to say what the market value of the Government's securities in each holding company will be at the time of flotation. The total value of these securities implied by the share price of the equity sold, will depend on market conditions at the time. It may or may not cover the book value of funds now invested in each business. The Government will, however, choose a capital structure calculated to ensure a proper return to the Exchequer and hence the taxpayer and that the industry is in a position fully to meet its obligations. In the meantime the Government will continue to meet the industry's requirements for capital from the national loans fund.

  Rose Theatre
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 21 February to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan),Official Report, column 572, if he will take steps to ensure that the Rose theatre is available for the public to see as an interpretable monument.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 12 May 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House on Monday 16 May.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what method his Department uses to destroy redundant leaflets; and at what cost.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Surplus copies of leaflets are sold to the paper industry for recycling.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Consultants
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of employing(a) computer consultants and (b) management consultants for each financial year from 1983 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated total cost of employing computer and management consultants on social security matters since 1984–85 is as follows:

  Year

  Computer £ million

  Management £ million

  1984–85

  6·589

  0·959

  1985–86

  10·223

  1·722

  1986–87

  11·971

  0·976

  1987–88

  21·930

  1·082

  1988–89

  42·099

  1·203

  Expenditure up to and including the 1988–89 financial year has been from a joint health and social security budget. Where appropriate the cost of projects has been apportioned when the work involved both social security and health aspects.

  Expenditure by the DHSS on computer and management consultancy in 1983–84 amounted to 0–623 million, but it is not possible to apportion this between the two Departments with any accuracy, or to differentiate between computer and management consultancy.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many funeral payments were made in 1988–89 and at what cost; how much of this amount has been repaid; and how much is regarded as recoverable.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Payments

  Cost £

  Amount recovered £

  1988–89

  140,248

  119,744,925

  1659,930

  1 Provisional figures.

  Separate data are not held on the extent to which payments made are regarded as recoverable.

  Income Support and Housing Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged 70 to 75 years receive(a) income support and (b) housing benefit; and if he will state these figures as a proportion of the total number of women aged 70 to 75 years.
  270
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest estimate is that there are some 249,000 women aged 70 to 74 (inclusive) dependent on income support. This represents 20 per cent, of all women in this age group.

  I regret that similar information is not available for housing benefit.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply given to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) of 8 May,Official Report, column 309, he will give an estimate of the distribution of households facing marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rates of more than 40 per cent, in total and in each band stated by standard region.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimates of those working heads of tax units facing combined marginal withdrawal rates of over 40 per cent, are available only at national level.

  Transitional Payments
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given to adjudication officers by his Department as to eligibility for transitional payments; and what steps have been taken to ensure that adjudication officers do not treat as an increase in income the restoration of full retirement pension to pensioners who were in receipt of reduced rate pensions during their attendance at hospital.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Part 35 of the "Adjudication Officers Guide," a copy of which is in the Library, gives extensive guidance on the legislation which applies to income support transitional protection. Adjudication officers who follow the guidance will have no difficulty in handling these cases correctly.

  Transitional Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are(a) on the establishment and (b) in post, together with relevant gradings, at the transitional housing benefit unit, Glasgow.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The staff in post on 15 May were as follows:

  Number

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  SEO

  1

  HEO

  12

  EO

  59

  AO

  169

  AA

  155

  Personal secretary

  1

  Typist

  4

  Messenger

  4

  Total

  407

  A detailed complement for the transitional protection unit—TPU—has not been laid down, but a budget of 160 man-years has been agreed for 1989–90 and reductions in staff during the year will ensure that the allocation is not exceeded.
  271
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been(a) received, (b) processed and (c) outstanding for each month of transitional housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table showing the cumulative position on the last working day of each month:

  Month

  Applications received

  Applications processed

  Applications outstanding

  July 1988

  135,433

  8,434

  126,999

  August 1988

  267,009

  69,498

  197,511

  September 1988

  316,473

  117,638

  198,835

  October 1988

  359,866

  235,753

  124,113

  November 1988

  390,942

  296,931

  94,011

  December 1988

  400,584

  333,254

  67,330

  January 1989

  415,065

  372,844

  42,221

  February 1989

  436,681

  397,669

  39,012

  March 1989

  463,751

  416,194

  47,557

  April 1989

  472,243

  433,002

  39,241

  NOTE: The majority of cases outstanding are where the TPU is awaiting the return of inquiry forms about housing benefit details from local authorities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases transitional housing benefit was sent to the wrong local authority by the transitional housing benefit payments unit.

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

  Family Income Supplement
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many decisions were made on new claims for family income supplement and family credit; and how many awards resulted in each month since April 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The available information for all claims is as follows:

  Claims dealt with2

  Awards

  Month1

  4New claims

  3Total

  4New claims

  3Total

  FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

  1987

  April

  20,337

  28,628

  8,868

  15,433

  May

  25,635

  37,195

  11,978

  21,308

  June

  21,907

  31,837

  10,143

  17,998

  July

  28,065

  39,814

  13,499

  23,007

  August

  20,387

  28,797

  9,830

  16,473

  September

  19,633

  28,534

  8,843

  15,893

  October

  21,217

  31,074

  10,281

  18,186

  November

  28,143

  42,004

  13,687

  24,598

  December

  19,332

  27,768

  9,199

  15,854

  1988

  January

  17,789

  27,432

  8,130

  15,619

  February

  21,245

  31,904

  9,132

  17,454

  March

  20,913

  31,516

  9,384

  17,345

  April

  13,327

  18,886

  6,380

  10,346

  May

  5,613

  7,677

  3,424

  4,928

  June

  2,171

  3,066

  1,258

  1,905

  July

  2,383

  3,208

  1,076

  1,637

  August

  409

  692

  308

  485

  September

  207

  438

  148

  275

  October

  108

  176

  87

  145

  November

  57

  100

  57

  100

  December

  1989

  January

  272

  Claims dealt with2

  Awards

  Month1

  4New claims

  3Total

  4New claims

  3Total

  FAMILY CREDIT

  1988

  April

  —

  64,269

  —

  40,213

  May

  June

  —

  52,867

  —

  36,145

  July

  —

  55,647

  —

  37,912

  August

  —

  58,275

  —

  40,249

  September

  —

  34,808

  —

  24,158

  October

  —

  62,838

  —

  44,944

  November

  —

  64,150

  —

  46,234

  December

  —

  50,947

  —

  35,797

  1989

  January

  —

  62,029

  —

  42,712

  February

  —

  63,908

  —

  45,180

  March

  —

  66,652

  —

  47,184

  April

  34,671

  62,465

  18,658

  43,300

  1 The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday of the month.

  2 The figures for claims dealt with include awards, disallowances, renewal claims received more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award (and therefore invalid) and withdrawn claims.

  3 Includes claims made to renew an existing award on its expiry.

  4 A breakdown of the family credit figures between new claims and renewal claims is not available for the period before April 1989.

DEFENCE

  UDR and TA (Vetting)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be revising vetting arrangements for recruits to the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland to prevent infiltration by paramilitary members.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We seek to exclude members of paramilitary and extremist organisations from any form of service in the armed forces. The procedures for achieving this are well established and are kept under constant review.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to ensure that defence-related confidential information acquired in Short Bros., Belfast, is not transferred to foreign powers.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that confidential information relating to defence is not transferred from Short Brothers, Belfast, to Armscor, South Africa.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of firms which receive classified defence contracts to meet the security requirements specified by the Ministry of Defence and to facilitate inspection of their security arrangements. Given his general responsibilities for security, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also maintains close contacts with the firm.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the amount spent by the Ministry
  273
  of Defence in each year since the start of the nuclear submarine programme on repairs as a result of fire aboard nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While there have been occasional fires aboard nuclear-powered submarines, it is not possible to identify separately all the repair costs attributable to this cause. However, in the vast majority of cases the fires were so minor that the sums involved would have been minimal in relation to the overall expenditure on submarine repairs or refits.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the technical details on which his Department bases its evaluation of the consequences of a nuclear submarine accident in or near dock with regard to 550 m limits and radiation spread.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The predictions of consequences of accidents involving Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines are carried out by experts from both within and outside this Department, and are assessed by independent consultants. The technical information upon which the predictions are based cannot be released, since it would enable conclusions to be drawn about classified aspects of the design of submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report (a) all fires aboard nuclear submarines whilst in dock since the start of the nuclear submarine programme, (b) how these fires started, (c) the location of the fires within the submarine, (d) the time of day the fires started and how long they burned, (e) whether civilian police, fire services and ambulance services were informed, (f) under what conditions civil emergency personnel were allowed on board, (g) if there were any military or civilian casualties, (h) what inquiries were instigated into the cause and consequences of any fires, what subsequent recommendations were made, and which have been put into practice and (i) the guidelines governing the involvement of civilian fire personnel in fighting fires aboard nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The majority of the detailed information requested is not readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate effort and cost. I shall write to the hon. Member about the guidelines for the involvement of civil fire personnel in fighting fires aboard nuclear submarines.

  Zirconium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been placed with United Kingdom universities for the research on zirconium for fuel cladding for submarine nuclear fuel by the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston in the past five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Arms Reduction
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the definition of(a) tanks and (b) artillery and (c) armoured personnel carriers adopted by the Western Alliance at the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the document "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts"274
  published by NATO in November 1988, a copy of which is in the Library. The NATO proposals tabled at the negotiation of conventional forces in Europe (CFE) deal with main battle tanks and artillery which fall within those categories in that document, and with armoured troop carriers. The latter include armoured personnel carriers and armoured infantry fighting vehicles.

  NATO
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any recent communication from the British American Security Information Council over its report on the comprehensive concept of defence and disarmament for NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As far as I can ascertain, the Ministry of Defence has received no recent communication from the British American Security Information Council.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proceedings of the Defence Export Services Organisation's annual symposia with industry can be made available to(a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The proceedings of the DESO symposium are commercial in confidence and circulated only to those companies taking part.

  Nuclear Bomber (Emergency Landing)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the emergency landing of a United States Air Force F111 nuclear bomber at Upper Heyford and the fireball caused by the jettisoning of fuel; and what implications this has for the safety of the local population.

  Mr. Neubert
  An F111E aircraft developed an engine problem shortly after take-off on a routine training mission from RAF Upper Heyford just after 7 pm on May. The pilot immediately decided to return to base. Shortly before landing he jettisoned excess fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft and ensure a safe landing, the jettisoned fuel was ignited by the exhaust plume of the aircraft's engine, causing a brief flame. The pilot performed the routine operational procedures designed to cope with a problem of this sort exactly as he is trained to do and the aircraft ianded without further incident. At no time was there any danger to local residents. The incident is being investigated by the USAF authorities at the base to determine the cause of the problem.

  Victoria Barracks, Windsor
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions have been reached with regard to the rebuilding of Victoria barracks since the joint visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead, on 1 September 1988; if he will give an indication of the dates when the rebuilding will commence and finish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Approval to proceed with the rebuilding of Victoria barracks on the site of the old barracks at
  275
  Windsor has now been given. Formal tenders will be invited shortly and it is hoped to start work on site towards the latter part of 1989. Work is expected to take about three years.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Army premature voluntary release figures for

  Army PVR figures for 1st and 4th quarters 1983–1st quarter 1989

  Male Officers

  Female Officers

  Service men

  Service women

  Total

  1983

  1st quarter

  69

  2

  417

  19

  507

  4th quarter

  130

  5

  563

  21

  719

  1984

  1st quarter

  83

  2

  569

  23

  677

  4th quarter

  155

  8

  700

  21

  884

  1985

  1st quarter

  128

  9

  730

  19

  886

  4th quarter

  190

  15

  779

  36

  1,020

  1986

  1st quarter

  128

  6

  686

  28

  848

  4th quarter

  136

  6

  807

  36

  985

  1987

  1st quarter

  116

  7

  618

  30

  771

  4th quarter

  178

  12

  839

  34

  1,063

  1988

  1st quarter

  120

  7

  861

  42

  1,030

  4th quarter

  154

  3

  1,024

  24

  1,205

  1989

  1st quarter

  103

  9

  1,042

  27

  1,181

ENERGY

  Coal Reclamation Scheme (Garw Valley)
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated volume and value of coal to be extracted from the proposed reclamation scheme in the upper Garw valley.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Welsh Development Agency and Mid Glamorgan county council are jointly responsible for the proposed reclamation scheme in the upper Garw valley. However, I understand that the British Coal Corporation retained mineral rights to the coal and that the landscaping proposals involve about 3 million cu m of colliery tips containing about 0·5 million tonnes of recoverable coal. The value of the coal is a matter for commercial negotiation and will reflect future market conditions.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport (Belfast-Dublin)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of passenger air transport between Belfast and Dublin.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is a small amount of charter traffic between Belfast and Dublin. In addition, the Irish airline Iona National Airways operated scheduled services on the route during the period May-September
  276
  the fourth quarter of each year from 1983 to 1988 and the first quarter of each year from 1983 to 1989; and if he will provide the information in the form as in his reply of 15 December 1988, Official Report, columns 685–86.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested is set out in the table:

  1988. A total of 1,007 passengers were carried in 1988. Our liberal air services arrangements with the Irish authorities apply to this route, but there are currently no scheduled services.

  Airports
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 2 March,Official Report, column 291, what further steps he proposes to take to encourage local authorities to involve the private sector in the ownership, development, management and running of airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of authorities are now involving the private sector. Before considering further steps, the Government need to assess how far the objectives of their policy are being achieved.

  A1 (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make an announcement about further improvements to the A1 in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Schemes to improve the A1 for the majority of the length in north Yorkshire are already included in the national trunk road programme. The following announcements about these are expected before the end of the summer:

  (i) the joint decision by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment on whether to make the published orders for the Wetherby to Dishforth section; and

  277

  (ii) the publication of draft orders for a new junction at Gatenby lane.

  The remaining lengths were considered as part of the review of the trunk road programme. My right hon. Friend announced the results of that review earlier today.

  Motor Accidents (Deaf Drivers)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicle accidents resulting in(a) death, (b) injury and (c) other have taken place each year since 1980 where deaf drivers have been involved and deafness has been (i) the main cause or (ii) a contributory cause.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested cannot be obtained as the STATS19 road accident report form records neither cause of accident nor the incidence of deaf drivers involved in road accidents.

  There is no reason to believe that a deaf person is more at risk of causing, or being involved in, a crash than any other driver.

  Hazardous Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the sealing off of part of the Corley service station area on the M6 motorway on Thursday 23 March in connection with a lorry carrying hazardous materials, and what information he has as to what consideration had been given to escort provision for this load.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A lorry carrying explosives broke down on the M6 and was towed to the nearest service area for replacement of an alternator before continuing its journey. It was isolated from other vehicles and a fire engine was called to stand by as a precautionary measure.

  For the type and quantity of material involved an escort was not required. Pre-arranged routes have to be agreed with the police and followed where a vehicle carries large quantities of certain types of explosive material.

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a decision and an announcement on the Leeds-Bradford airport's application for an extension of operating hours.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A joint decision by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment will be made as soon as possible.

  Drivers (Eye Tests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of people required to take regular eyesight tests in order to retain their driving licences; and what proportion fail on average every year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no information about the number of people required to take regular eyesight tests. In 1988–89 the total number of people required to take a prescribed eyesight test to determine their fitness to drive was 2,981.

  Eyesight problems account for around 8 per cent. of the medical declarations on applications and notifications (during the currency of the licence), and around 8 per cent.
  278
  of referrals and revocations relate to eyesight. In 1987–88 there were 10,442 revocations/refusals in all and in 1988–89 there were 10,891 revocations/refusals in all, resulting in over 800 revocations/refusals on eysight grounds in each year.

  Road Improvements (North-East)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will summarise the progress made by his Department in(a) improving the A1 link to the north-east and (b) other major road improvements in the north-east.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The trunk road and motorway plans announced earlier today in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" provide for the conversion to motorway of the Redhouse to Hook Moor section of the A1 in Yorkshire, and for a comprehensive review of the route, including investigation of the possibility of full motorway status from London to Tyneside.

  The A1 between Newcastle and Morpeth and the A69 between Newcastle and Hexham are now dual carriageway throughout. The construction of the £88 million Newcastle western bypass is well advanced. Improvement schemes are in various stages of preparation for the A 1 north of Morpeth, the A69 west of Hexham, the A66 west of Bowes and the A19 at Peterlee.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library details of the volume and value of(a) anthracite coal, (b) bituminous coal and (c) other coal, imported through the port of Cardiff for each month since January 1986, separately distinguishing the countries of origin.

  Mr. Portillo
  The data readily available are as follows:

  Imports of coal through the port of Cardiff

  Tonnes 000s

  Value £ million

  1986

  January to March

  47·0

  2·00

  April to June

  57·0

  2·37

  July to September

  78·0

  3·29

  October to December

  75·0

  3·36

  1987

  January to June

  96·0

  3·85

  July to December

  125·6

  4·81

  1988

  January to June

  145·6

  5·10

  July to December

  148·2

  7·72

  1989

  January to March

  99·0

  3·85

  For more detailed information the hon. Member should contact a marketing agent of Customs and Excise data. A list of these agents is given in Business Monitor MM20 "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" or in "The Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom", copies of which are in the Library.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular

  279
  form a list of those harbours, docks and piers which employ persons sworn as special constables in accordance with the provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 together with the name of the undertakers who are the employers in each case and the number of specials employed in each location.

  Mr. Portillo
  The harbour undertakings in Great Britain where there are special constables sworn in under the provisions of the 1847 Act, incorporated into local legislation, are:

  Harbour undertaking

  Number employed

  Port of Bristol Authority

  45

  Dover Harbour Board

  86

  A and P Appledore (Falmouth) Limited

  9

  Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company

  34

  Manchester Ship Canal Company

  29

  Milford Dock Company

  5

  Sealink Harbours Limited, Parkeston Quay1

  27

  Tees and Harlepool Port Authority

  21

  1 Employed by Protective Security Systems Limited on exclusive contract with Sealink.

  There are also two in Northern Ireland:

  Harbour undertaking

  Number employed

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners

  37

  Lame Harbour Limited

  16

  Two undertakings employ police under local legislation which is fuller than the 1847 Act provisions:

  Harbour undertaking

  Number employed

  Port of London Authority

  47

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  102

  Air Traffic Distribution Rules
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eastwood on 8 May,Official Report, column 343, when, and in what form, he intends to publish the new air traffic distribution rules for Scotland, and under what statutory authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The new rules ("Traffic Distribution Rules 1989 for Prestwick and Glasgow" and "Traffic Distribution Rules 1989 for Prestwick and Edinburgh") were made on 9 May under section 31 of the Airports Act 1986. Copies were sent to interested parties, and have been placed in the Library.

  Lowland Airport Policy (Scotland)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those organisations he consulted representing(a) Scottish industry and commerce and (b) the airline and travel industries who were (i) for and (ii) against a review of Scottish lowland airport policy as requested by BAA plc.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend initiated no such consultations, but he received a variety of representations, both for and against a review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the test discount rate for road schemes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In reply to a question on 5 April from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new required rate of return for nationalised industries of 8 per cent. As a result, British Rail intends to adopt a test discount rate of 8 per cent. for investment projects. In order to ensure that road and rail projects continue to be appraised on a comparable basis, the test discount rate for road projects will be increased from 7 to 8 per cent.

  Road and Rail Statistics
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give figures for investment in British Rail for 1978–79 and 1989–90; investment in national roads in 1978–79 and 1989–90 and the figures for road deaths in 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Channon
  The information is:

  1978–79

  1989–90

  outturn £ million

  plans £ million

  Cash

  Investment by British Rail in the railway

  1208

  740

  Capital expenditure on national roads in England

  327

  1,190

  Real terms (1987–88 prices)

  Investment by British Rail in the railway

  1425

  654

  Capital expenditure on national roads in England

  668

  1,052

  1 Calendar year 1978.

  Road deaths in Great Britain totalled 6,831 in 1978. The provisional figure for 1988 is 5,041.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits on his votes.

  Mr. Channon
  Subject to parliamentary approval of a revised Estimate, the cash limit on class VIII, vote 2 is to be reduced by £800,000 from £235,013,000 to £234,213,000 to reflect the transfer to the Ministry of Defence of responsibility for the costs of royal flights in civil aircraft.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  South Africa (Arms Embargo)
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps is he taking to prevent Northern Ireland firms contributing inadvertently to the circumvention of the arms embargo on South Africa.

  Mr. Tom King
  Security arrangements are a primary responsibility of every company in Northern Ireland. Since the theft in October last year from a Short's factory there has been a review of security at all Short's establishments
  281
  and a number of additional measures have been, or are being, implemented. I maintain a close interest in such matters.

  NHS Review
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations expressing support for the proposals contained in "Working For Patients" he has received from individuals or organisations in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have had representations both orally and in writing. Many have supported aspects of the proposals. I welcome the constructive nature of most of the representations.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he is giving to a strengthening of the fair employment laws.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, which was introduced in this House in December last year, has now completed its Committee stage and will be brought before the House for further consideration at any early date. The Bill will strengthen significantly the existing law in Northern Ireland relating to fair employment.

  Women (Pressure Groups)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has held with women's groups.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

HEALTH

  Pain
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision exists for research into the alleviation of pain for cancer sufferers as distinct from the research into the causes and cure.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. The council supports a considerable amount of basic research into pain, some of which is of relevance to cancer sufferers. In 1987–88, the last financial year for which figures are available, the council's expenditure for research into pain was £398,000. The council is also conducting clinical cancer trials to evaluate the efficacy of new treatments not only in curing disease but in relieving symptoms, including pain.
  282
  In addition, university departments and medical schools support a range of the basic research from public funds, some of which may be relevant to the relief of pain of sufferers from cancer and other diseases.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for 1987–88, for each district health authority, regional health authority, and special health authority the total expenditure on agency staff, expressed at current prices, 1986–87 prices, and as a percentage of each health authority's budget.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information directly derived and revalued to 1986–87 prices from the 1987–88 annual accounts of district and regional health authorities in England and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals has been placed in the Library.

  Computer and Management Consultants
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to his Department of employing(a) computer consultants and (b) management consultants, for each financial year from 1983 to date.

  Mr. Mellor
  Expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on computer and management consultancy in 1983–84 was £3·623 million. We cannot apportion this accurately between the two Departments or between computer and management consultancy.

  The estimated expenditure on health-related computer and management consultancy in 1984–85 was £0·613 million. It is not possible to separately identify the cost of computer consultancy.

  The estimated expenditure from 1985–86 onwards on fees and expenses for computer and management consultants on health matters is as follows:

  Computer consultants £ million

  Management consultants £ million

  1985–86

  0·880

  0·479

  1986–87

  2·067

  2·103

  1987–88

  1·950

  1·244

  1988–89

  1·792

  1·584

  The figures are approximate since expenditure up to and including the 1988–89 year was from a joint health and social security budget. In some cases expenditure has been apportioned where consultants have been engaged on both health and social security matters. The figures for management consultancy include social services consultancy and some computer consultancy where these cannot be identified separately.

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the percentage increases in pay of administrative and clerical staff in the National Health Service in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Percentage settlements for administrative and clerical staff throughout Great Britain since 1984 are shown in the table. Pay increases have been effective from 1 April in each year.
  283

  Year

  Percentage

  1984

  4·5

  1985

  4·7

  1986

  6·0

  1987

  5·0

  1988

  5·5

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the contribution made to community care by the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Mellor
  The voluntary sector makes a very valuable contribution to the provision of health and personal social services, including community care. The Department encourages the complementary role of volunteers and voluntary organisations and has given practical assistance through central funding, including the "Helping the Community to Care" and "Opportunities for Volunteering" initiatives.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the variations in cost of treatment between different health districts.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are often good reasons for variations in the cost of treatment between different health districts. It is for district and regional management to consider whether costs are reasonable and how performance could be improved.

  The Department publishes Health Service indicators and other costing information each year to assist local management in that task, It is hoped to publish performance indicators for 1988–89 at the end of this year or early next year. The proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" are designed to increase efficiency and should therefore have an additional impact on unjustifiable cost variations.

  Nurses
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the number of nurses employed by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provisional figures for September 1988 show the total number of nursing and midwifery staff (including agency) in the NHS in England as 404,000 whole-time equivalents, an increase of 45,000 (12·6 per cent.) since September 1979. The numbers of qualified nurses and midwives continue to increase and in 1988 the proportion was 60 per cent. of the total number of nursing and midwifery staff compared with 54 per cent. in 1979.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from general practitioners in favour of his proposals to reform the Health Service; and how many he has received against.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on 5 May, at column 265.
  284
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received from the general public about his National Health Service reform proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received in excess of 4,000 letters from members of the public about the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the pay will be for a general practitioner with 2,000 patients who achieves all the targets contained in the new general practitioner contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  The levels of fees and allowances payable from April 1990 under the new GPs contract will be determined in the light of the recommendations to be made by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration in its next report. We have agreed with the general medical services committee's negotiators to submit joint evidence to the review body later this year.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any decision has yet been taken on the centralisation of the administration of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We shall be giving further consideration to this in the light of the recommendations made in the report of the commission on its review of its functions, organisations, staffing and finance, which is expected shortly.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 19 April, what proportion of the amounts due to pharmacists from 1978 to 1988 was in respect of profits; and how much was in respect of reimbursement of costs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total amounts due, and the amounts due for costs and profit for England and Wales as shown in the balance sheets prepared with representatives of the profession, are:

  £ million

  Total amounts due

  Amounts due for costs

  Amounts due for profit

  1978

  142·0

  121·8

  20·2

  1979

  170·9

  148·1

  22·8

  1980

  215·2

  177·9

  37·3

  1981

  238·9

  189·1

  49·8

  1982

  280·2

  225·9

  54·1

  1983

  324·8

  269·3

  55·5

  1984

  350·3

  291·2

  59·1

  19851

  96·6

  78·3

  18·3

  1985·86

  383·7

  313·5

  70·2

  1986·87

  415·0

  342·3

  72·7

  1987–88

  485·8

  407·2

  78·6

  1 1 January 1985 to 31 March 1985.

  Hospitals (Self-Government)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in the north-west have expressed interest in opting out; and if he will make a statement.
  285
  Mr. Mellor
  RHAs are currently considering expressions of interest in individual hospitals becoming self governing. They have been asked to send the expressions of interest to the Department, together with their comments, by 31 May.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if community health councils will be accorded the same rights in relation to proposals for the self-governing status of particular hospitals as they currently enjoy in relation to closure proposals.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation rights Central Manchester community health council will have in any decision of the Central Manchester district health authority to seek self-governing status for its hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  Community health councils will be consulted on local applications for self-governing status and my right hon. and learned Friend will consider their views when deciding on applications.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health managers whose hospitals opt for self-governing status will qualify for incentive payments under the arrangements for performance-related pay.

  Mr. Mellor
  This will be for individual hospital trusts to decide.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to enable the local public to determine through secret ballots whether particular hospitals should have self-governing status.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means he expects regional health authorities to gauge the views of local communities on proposals for particular hospitals to have self-governing status;

  (2) what advice he has given to regional health authorities in processing proposals for the self-governing status of particular hospitals when such proposals are strongly opposed by many of those deemed to have an interest in the hospitals concerned.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regional health authorities were given general advice in National Health Service review working paper No. 1—"Self-Governing Hospitals", published on 20 February 1989. Regional health authorities will determine precisely how they publicise applications and seek the views of those with an interest.

  Private Patients (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue generated from private patients at hospitals in Bolton in 1988; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to pursue his inquiry with Mr. T. Taylor, chairman of Bolton health authority.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been immunised with the new measles, mumps and rubella vaccine since its introduction in October 1988.
  286
  Mr. Mellor
  Immunisation uptake figures for 1988–89 will not be available until later this year. However, from the launch of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine last October to the end of March, 1·4 million doses were distributed to health authorities. The number of children in the recommended priority groups (aged 15 months and four to five years) who became eligible for the vaccine in that period was 600,000.

  Harts Hospital (Sale)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the proceeds of the sale of Harts hospital; and how much has been directly returned to Waltham Forest health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The net proceeds of the sale of Harts hospital were £29·3 million. Capital allocations are a matter for the regional health authority concerned.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has conducted monitoring exercises in compliance with the code of the Commission of Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunity Commission, respectively, separate from the Department of Social Security; whether his Department plans to do so; whether his Department plans to maintain records of the ethnic origins of its staff and officers separate from the Department of Social Security; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The action taken by the then Department of Health and Social Security in support of its equal opportunities policy will continue in the Department of Health and will follow the guidance in the codes of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunity Commission. This action includes the monitoring of personnel policies and procedures.

  Work is in hand to ensure that the staff records, including ethnic origin data, of the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security can be separately identified. I shall write to the hon. and learned Member when this is completed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have the information in the form requested because records are held on combined basis with the Department of Social Security. I refer the hon. and learned Member to the information in the reply to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 22 March 1989 at column 679.

  Human Insulin
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the volume and value of human insulin imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1983; what proportion this represents of the total human insulin used in the United Kingdom each year since 1983; and whether any checks are made as to whether this human insulin was purchased or donated voluntarily.
  287
  Mr. Mellor
  All "human insulin" is manufactured, either by modification of porcine insulin or using biotechnology to produce in the laboratory a product which has the same chemical characteristics as insulin occurring naturally in humans. For this reason it is commonly referred to as "human insulin", though it is not, as might be assumed, derived from human sources. All such human insulin sold in the United Kingdom is now imported, although there was some manufacture up to 1987. Information on amounts sold was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 21 December 1988, at column 325.

  Weil's Disease
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the number of deaths, by occupational category, and by region, from Weil's disease in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not wholly available: details of the deceased's occupation were not coded in some of the past 20 years.

  Number of deaths due to Weil's disease1 by standard region of usual residence and occupation, 1968–87.

  Year

  Total

  Region

  Occupation2

  1968

  8

  East Midlands

  n/a

  Yorks and Humberside (2)

  n/a

  South East (4)

  n/a

  East Anglia

  n/a

  1969

  6

  Yorks and Humberside

  n/a

  South East (2)

  n/a

  Wales

  n/a

  West Midlands

  n/a

  South West

  n/a

  1970

  3

  Yorks and Humberside (2)

  Agricultural machinery drivers aged under 15

  South West

  Food processors (nee)

  1971

  3

  South East (2)

  Labourers, others (nee)

  Labourers, building and contracting

  Wales

  Labourers, others (nee)

  1972

  9

  East Anglia

  Farmers, farm managers, market gardeners

  North

  Proprietors and managers, sales

  South West (2)

  Construction workers (nee)

  No occupation

  South East (4)

  Agricultural workers (nee) Fanners, farm managers, market gardeners

  Construction workers (nee)

  Farmers, farm managers, market gardeners

  North West

  Fanners, farm managers, market gardeners

  1973

  2

  Wales

  n/a

  Yorks and Humberside

  n/a

  1974

  1

  West Midlands

  n/a

  1975

  5

  South East

  Construction workers (nee)

  South West (2)

  Agricultural workers (nee) Farmers, farm managers, market gardeners

  East Midlands

  Aged under 15

  North Western

  No occupation

  1976

  2

  South Western

  n/a

  Yorks and Humberside

  n/a

  1977

  2

  East Midlands

  n/a

  North Western

  n/a

  288

  Year

  Total

  Region

  Occupation2

  1978

  3

  Northern

  n/a

  Yorks and Humberside

  n/a

  South East

  n/a

  1979

  3

  South East (3)

  Fanners, horticulturists, farm managers Labourers Teachers (nee)

  1980

  4

  South East (2)

  Fanners, horticulturists, farm managers Not stated including housewife

  South West

  Chefs, cooks

  Wales

  Sales representatives (property and service) other agents

  1981

  1

  South West

  Not stated including housewife

  1982

  2

  South East

  All other in farming and related

  Wales

  Gardeners and grounds-men

  1983

  1

  Wales

  Labourer, coal mines

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  3

  South West

  Other proprietors and managers (sales)

  West Midlands

  Butchers, meat cutters

  Yorks and Humberside

  Man-made fibre makers

  1986

  1

  East Midlands

  Refuse collectors, dustman

  1987

  1

  South East

  Farm workers

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes 1000 Leptospirosis icterohaemorrhagica plus 100.9. Leptospirosis unspecified.

  2 Occupations are coded using the 1970 and 1980 OPCS Classification of Occupations.

  n/a = Not available.

  (nec) = Not elsewhere classified.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects undertaken by the Health Education Authority on AIDS since its inception; what the budget for each project was; whether each project was approved by his Department; and what projects suggested by the authority have not received departmental approval.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in exactly the form requested because the HEA's work on AIDS is not funded on a project by project basis. The procedure followed is that the HEA draws up an operational programme which is discussed with Ministers in the authority's annual accountability review. Once the operational programme and budget for AIDS have been agreed the Health Education Authority discusses with the Department (and for United Kingdomwide mass media work, with the other Health Departments also) detailed proposals for implementing the operational programme. These arrangements are intended to ensure that material which is distributed is consistent with overall Government policy on HIV prevention. The work on HIV/AIDS carried out the the HEA is set out in "AIDS Programme Paper 4: The First Annual Report: October 1987 to September 1988", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the advice received from the Health Education Authority regarding policy towards AIDS; and what has been his response to the advice received.
  289
  Mr. Mellor
  One of the functions of the Health Education Authority is to give advice to Government on health education issues, including those relating the HIV/AIDS. This can be given formally or informally, privately or publicly and at various levels and the Government take account of this in reaching decisions on aspects of policy on HIV infection and AIDS.

  Kreutzfeldt-Jacob Dementia
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to announce his decision as to whether to introduce reporting procedures in respect of Kreutzfeldt-Jacob dementia.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to do so. Following the recommendation of the Southwood committee on bovine spongiform encephalopathy consideration is being given, however, to the most effective way of ensuring cases of this disease are monitored.

  Drugs (Quality)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department monitors the percentage of generic pharmaceutical supplies to hospitals which are rejected on the grounds of failing to meet quality standards.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department does not carry out such monitoring centrally. It is for individual health authorities, as purchasers of medicines, to satisfy themselves as to the quality of those pharmaceuticals.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that health authorities are handling and disposing of clinical waste safely.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have recently called for all health authorities to carry out a special review of their arrangements for handling and disposing of clinical waste. Their reports confirmed that the vast majority of health authorities conform to the guidance set out in the Health and Safety Commission document, "The Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste."

  In the few exceptional cases where the guidance has not been fully implemented, the main principles of segregation in colour coded bags and incineration are followed. Where contractors are used, the contract is being closely monitored. The Department is taking action to ensure that the guidance is complied with in all respects.

  Shropshire league of friends
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the continuing widespread concern over health care in Shopshire, he will now see a delegation of the Shropshire league of friends following its correspondence with him on 17 March; and what response he has made to its claim that it is statutorily entitled to such consideration.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: I have told the Shropshire hospitals league of friends that I see little to be gained by discussion of the decisions taken last year, which are now settled and behind us. I have left open the possibility of receiving a delegation from the league of friends and other interested groups if any further
  290
  proposals concerning health care in Shropshire came to me for decision. Decisions about the financing of health care in Shropshire are of course for the West Midlands regional health authority and day-to-day management decisions are the responsibility of the Shropshire district health authority.

  I am aware of no claim by the leagues of friends that they are statutorily entitled to send a delegation to see me.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Brain Offal
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on steps being taken by his Department to ban brain offal from the food chain.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following publication of the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, I announced that I intend, as a precautionary measure, to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of baby foods contaning brains or other specified offal. I hope to circulate draft regulations for public consultation shortly.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of the £155 million to be provided to United Kingdom farmers in consequence of the recent common agricultural policy price agreement will be provided by the EEC, Her Majesty's Government and the consumer respectively.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Approximately one half is expected to be financed by the Exchequer either directly, or indirectly from the European Community, with the remainder being borne by consumers. The total impact on the retail prices index (all items) is estimated to be very small, at most one twentieth of 1 per cent.

  Product Labelling
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any discussions with food manufacturers regarding the labelling of products with full ingredients and additives; and what is the Government's policy on the use of additives in food.

  Mr. Ryder
  I and my colleagues frequently meet food manufacturing and other interests to discuss a wide range of topics, including food labelling. Government policy on food additives is to ensure that additives are approved only after rigorous examination for need and safety in use by independent committees. Ministers are advised on this by the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Milk
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on green top milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 23 February, at columns 712–13.

  Sahnonella
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 10 May,Official Report, column 459, whether he will make it his policy to ban the import of consignments of eggs which are found to be contaminated with salmonella.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  For technical and legal reasons it is not feasible to detain consignments of imported eggs pending testing for salmonella, which takes a number of days. However, where any sample is found to be contaminated with invasive salmonella, the Commission is informed and follow-up action taken with the member state concerned, with a view to eradication of the problem at source.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in the latest 12 months for which figures are available consignments of imported eggs have been(a) checked for salmonella infection and (b) found to be infected with salmonella.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 May 1989, c. 459]: Two of the samples taken from consignments of eggs in the last month have now been shown to be positive for salmonella.

  In one of these cases, salmonella enteritidis PT4 was identified on the shells of eggs packed in the Netherlands. I have drawn this result to the attention of the Dutch Minister, so that measures can be taken to eradicate the problem at source.

  An invasive type of salmonella was not identified in the other sample.

  11988–89

  1989–90

  Service

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Total

  Total

  State veterinary service

  3

  32

  14

  25

  74

  90

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food animal health group

  2

  1

  1

  3

  5

  5

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional administration

  —

  0·5

  1

  12

  13

  14

  1 Grade bands:

  A—Grades 1 to 6.

  B—SEO-7 and equivalents.

  C—EO-HEO and equivalents.

  D—Clerical and industrial grades.

  2 Less than 0·5

  Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food MINIM.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy are being identified, on average, in each week by antemortem inspection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On average, 140 to 150 suspected cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy are being identified each week by antemortem inspection.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had in the European Council of Ministers on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and its transmission.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, 4 May,Official Report, columns 195–96, which animal species are involved in experiments
  292
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many man-years he estimates will be spent on salmonellosis in each of the field and veterinary investigation services, and at the central veterinary laboratory, in the next year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  Man years

  Field service

  28·5

  Veterinary investigation service

  85·0

  Central veterinary laboratory

  25·5

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure he has available for the number of cattle in Britain infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Up to 12 May, 4,570 cases of BSE had been confirmed in Great Britain.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many man-years have been spent by his Department on bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the last year, by grade, and by service;

  (2) how many man-years he expects to be spent on bovine spongiform encephalopathy by his Department in the next year, by grade, and by service.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows. Manpower forecasts are not subdivided by grade for 1989–90.

  on the transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what have been the results to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Transmission experiments are taking place in hamsters, mice, calves, sheep, goats, marmosets and pigs. So far, only mice have been affected.

  Dutch Elm Disease
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the research programme into Dutch elm disease; and if there are any prospects for the elimination thereof.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Forestry Commission continues to commit significant resources to research on Dutch elm disease, which complements research being carried out in other countries. There is no prospect of eliminating the disease, and the commission's research programme is
  293
  mainly aimed at finding ways of reducing its incidence. In addition, work is being conducted on the potential role of disease-resistant elms.

  Farm Diversification Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications his

  Period

  Applications received

  Applications approved

  Grant commitmerit (£'000)

  1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988

  682

  528

  2,635

  1 July 1988 to 31 December 1988

  405

  288

  1,572

  1 January 1989 to 30 April 1989

  308

  136

  660

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of the number of successful applications under the farm diversification scheme for each country if England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that the information requested is only available by the divisional offices of Departments and not by counties. Approved applications for farm diversification capital grants for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 April 1989 were as follows:

  Division

  Number approved

  Beverley

  38

  Carlisle

  32

  Newcastle

  35

  Northallerton

  49

  Nottingham

  37

  Worcester

  39

  Preston

  20

  Crewe

  57

  Chelmsford

  34

  Huntingdon

  32

  Norwich

  43

  Lincoln

  23

  Guildford

  36

  Maidstone

  62

  Oxford

  36

  Exeter

  127

  Gloucester

  79

  Taunton

  87

  Truro

  87

  Caernarvon

  19

  Carmarthen

  70

  Llandrindod

  58

  Ruthin

  16

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of the number of successful applicants under the farm diversification scheme for each type of project eligible under the scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  The number of enterprises in approved applications for farm diversification capital grants in England and Wales for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 April 1989 were as follows:

  Number of enterprises

  Manufacture of craft items

  12

  Food processing:

  Dairy

  77

  Meats

  25

  Vegetables

  8

  294
  Department has received under the farm diversification scheme for each six-month period since its inception; how many have been successful in each period; and what has been the cost involved.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is as follows:

  Number of enterprises

  Fish

  9

  Drinks

  8

  Other

  12

  Timber processing

  8

  Non-food agricultural produce

  19

  Repair of agricultural machinery

  6

  Farm shops:

  Food

  98

  Other

  30

  Pick-your-own sales

  16

  Accommodation:

  Serviced

  151

  Self catering

  334

  Caravanning

  56

  Camping sites

  8

  Camping and bunkhouse barns

  4

  Catering:

  Restaurant

  22

  Other

  25

  Recreation and education:

  Fishing

  93

  Sports

  20

  Play areas

  21

  Leisure parks

  8

  Farm visitors

  46

  Environmental facilities (eg nature trails)

  23

  Other

  37

  Horses:

  Livery

  139

  For hire

  4

  Letting of farm units

  37

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of Friday 5 May,Official Report, column 279, what additional certification accompanying meat and bone meal exported from the United Kingdom is required by France, West Germany and Israel; what arrangements have been agreed for use by exporters of meat and bone meal to France; what requirements have been stipulated by Israel; and what assurances have been sought by West Germany.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  France and West Germany have requested confirmation of heat treatment in
  295
  accordance with their requirements. This certification can be provided. Germany and Israel have asked for clearance from BSE which can be supplied. Israel has also asked for freedom from scrapie and we are entering into discussions with the Israeli authorities on a form of assurances which would be acceptable.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, of 5 May,Official Report, column 279, whether he knows of any plans by the European Commission to introduce rules applying to the production of meat and bone meal.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Commission proposals for a Council regulation laying down veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste are currently being discussed in Brussels.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  l1989

  Chief veterinary officer

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 3

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 4

  8·0 (1)

  8·0 (1)

  70 (1)

  70 (1)

  70 (1)

  6·0 (1)

  7·0 (1)

  7·0 (1)

  70 (1)

  70 (1)

  Grade 5

  23·0

  23·0

  22·0

  21·0

  21·0

  21·0

  20·0

  17·0 (1)

  15·0 (1)

  17·0 (1)

  Grade 6

  15·0

  14·0

  14·0

  14·0

  15·0

  13·0

  11·0

  11·0

  11·0

  12·0

  Deputy regional veterinary officer

  24·0 (8)

  22·0 (6)

  22·0 (6)

  22·0 (6)

  21·0 (6)

  23·0 (6)

  13·0 (3)

  12·0 (2)

  13·0 (3)

  14·0 (3)

  Divisional veterinary officer

  128·0 (23)

  128·0 (22)

  125·0 (24)

  129·0 (23)

  129·0 (24)

  121·0 (22)

  115·0 (24)

  99·0 (19)

  93·0 (19)

  91·0 (19)

  Veterinary officer

  298·0 (58)

  286·0 (58)

  287·0 (61)

  285·5 (62)

  2820 (61)

  274·0 (57)

  274·0 (58)

  257·0 (53)

  244·0 (52)

  247·5 (49)

  Senior research officer grade II

  44·0

  43·0

  42·0

  39·0

  40·0

  36·0

  41·0

  40·0

  37·0

  33·0

  Veterinary research officer

  35·5

  36·5

  35·0

  28·5

  23·5

  30·5

  22·5

  18·5

  21·5

  14·5

  Senior animal health officer

  77·0

  74·0

  70·0

  71·0

  72·0

  71·0

  68·0

  49·0

  48·0

  45·0

  Animal health officer

  162·0

  150·0

  139·0

  129·0

  128·0

  127·0

  126·0

  120·0

  123·5

  122·5

  Note.—Figures in brackets relate to the veterinary investigation service, which is part of the state veterinary service.

  1 The 1989 figures include staff of the professional unit of the veterinary medicines directorate, who prior to 3 April 1989 belonged to the state veterinary service.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional resources have been provided for the state veterinary service in order to accommodate the increased workload resulting from bovine spongiform encephalopathy and salmonella.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Seventy four additional posts have been approved to deal with salmonellosis; consideration is still being given to the additional requirements for dealing with BSE.

  £'000

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Pay

  1—

  1—

  19,644

  22,316

  21,823

  24,805

  Non-pay

  1—

  1—

  5,525

  7,343

  7,594

  9,565

  Capital

  1—

  1—

  605

  1,086

  775

  966

  1 DBC not applied: no separate date available.

  Note:

  Figures ar not comparable year by year because of changes in the coverage in the service's decentralised budget.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are his estimates of the additional number of veterinary surgeons needed by his Department following the completion of the European Community internal market in 1992;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the state veterinary service is adequately staffed to deal with

  State Veterinary Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many veterinary officers he has employed in the state veterinary service, by grade, in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many veterinary officers he has employed in the state veterinary investigation service, by grade, in each of the last 10 years;

  (3) how many animal health officers he has employed in the state veterinary field service, by grade, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual budget of the state veterinary service for each of the last five years and for the financial year 1989–90, showing capital, pay and non-pay current cost votes.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows, in terms of initial allocations under decentralized budgetary control:

  emergencies and, in particular, to cope with additional workloads leading up to and following completion of the European Community internal market in 1992;

  (3) which areas of work in the state veterinary service are not being carried out as a result of the additional workload relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and salmonella.
  297
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Priorities within the state veterinary service are continually reassessed to ensure that adequate resources are devoted to all essential tasks. Staffing requirements are also kept under review and recruitment drives are held regularly. It would however be premature to attempt an estimate of the manpower required as a result of the establishment of the single market as negotiations on the arrangements are still in progress.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the average farm income in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years for which figures are available and adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Indices of net farm income per farm at current prices and in real terms by type of farm in the United Kingdom for the years 1983–84 to 1988–89 are published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1988". A copy of this is available in the Library of the House.

  County Council Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the sale of county council farms.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is the Government's policy to leave decisions on the sale of smallholdings to the smallholdings authorities concerned.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many county council farms there are in respect of each county of England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  The 38th annual report to Parliament on smallholdings in England (1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988) is now available in the Library of the House. Table 3 gives details of the number of smallholdings provided by county councils. A similar report for Wales is also available.

  Blowfly
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has issued any advice on the technique of using pour-on products for the control of blowfly infestation in sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Licences for such products require that the proper conditions of use are spelt out on the product labels and accompanying literature. My Department has not issued supplementary guidance.

  Co-responsibility Levy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid by British dairy farmers last year as co-responsibility levy; and what is his estimate of their liability in the current year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  United Kingdom dairy farmers paid some £53 million in milk co-responsibility levy in 1988–89. Following the reductions in the levy agreed in this year's farm price negotiations, it is currently estimated that their liability will be reduced to about £32 million in 1989–90.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to take to ensure that the beef special premium is paid to producers as an addition to, and not incorporated within, the market price of finished animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Payment of the beef special premium in Great Britain is made direct to the producer presenting the animals for slaughter or for sale For slaughter.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement indicating in full the documentary evidence required to be produced by claimants of the beef special premium; and which of these will be mandatory prerequisites.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The mandatory prerequisites for those applying for the beef special premium in Great Britain are that they shall have registered, prior to application and on the form provided, details of all their production units and that they complete an application form for each claim made. In addition, they must keep records sufficient to verify the claims for premium and to substantiate the means of production. Applicants are also required to keep records of the purchases and sales of animals which have been marked for premium as follows:

  (1) The date of transaction.

  (2) Numbers and descriptions of animals, and the weight of each animal.

  (3) In the case of a purchase or sale by auction at an auction market, the name and address of the auctioneer, and in any other case the name and address of the other party to the transaction.

  (4) Where applicable the dates by which any marked animals bought or sold are to be slaughtered.

  (5) Where applicable, the dates of slaughter of marked animals in their possession at the time of slaughter.

  Most of these requirements are in fact met by the scheme documentation.

  Applicants are required to retain such records for a period of three years from the end of the calender year to which they relate and to produce them for inspection if so required by an authorised officer.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to enforce the headage limit of 90 in respect of the beef special premium.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On each application form claimants for premium are required to declare that they have not exceeded the headage limit. Claims will be monitored by the computer program processing claims for payment and verification will he made on holding of claim details.

  Encephalopathies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department was sponsoring prior to 1987 on transmissible encephalopathies in animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The main centre for research on transmissible encephalopathies in animals has been the neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh, funded jointly by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Medical Research Council. My Department has been
  299
  maintaining a scrapie resistant flock of sheep for study at Redesdale experimental husbandry farm for many years and began an investigation of scrapies-associated fibrils in sheep in 1985–86. The central veterinary laboratory of MAFF studies new and emerging diseases continuously and identified bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle in November 1986 and has studied the pathology of cases ever since. The laboratory's main studies of bovine spongiform encephalopathy began in 1987.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of the set-aside programme.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 4 April 1989, column 45.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions exist for the inspection of imported meat products which originate outside the European Economic Community; and what is his estimate of the percentage of such imports which are so inspected.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Port health authorities are responsible for the inspection of meat products imported from all countries under the Imported Food Regulations 1984. The authorities are diligent in ensuring that all consignments have the proper health certification and are inspected.

  Humber Estuary
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring is currently being undertaken in and around the Humber estuary on(a) the decline in marine life and (b) the effects of water pollution on fish for human consumption.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: Concentrations of contaminants in fish and shellfish around the coasts of England and Wales including the Humber area are regularly monitored by scientists from my Department's directorate of fisheries research. Reports of this work are published and the latest such report, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report No. 16", is available in the Library of the House.

  Agricultural Research
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agricultural research resources are currently being devoted to(a) organic farming and (b) bio-dynamic farming techniques.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: This year my Department is spending £198,000 on research directly related to organic farming. Other research funded by my Department is also relevant to organic and so-called bio-dynamic farming techniques because it is directed at reducing the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides or improving the use of organic wastes from animals and crops. Such work includes the integrated control of cereals pests using insect predators, parasitic fungi and behaviour-controlling chemicals and will cost £892,000 this year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated date for publication of the Manpower Services Commission studies into the funding of training in Britain; whether he will consider publishing the interim results of the study; and whether the studies include a breakdown by economic region of private industry's expenditure on training.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The studies will be published by the autumn. Interim results of the study were published a year ago and a copy is in the House of Commons Library, ("The Funding of Vocational Education and Training: Some Early Research Findings, Background Note 2, Training Commission, 1988). The studies do not include a breakdown by economic region of private industry's expenditure on training but will provide some indication of levels of training in different parts of the country.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that employment training scheme management agencies and employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not continue to receive an allowance from his Department after trainees have left the scheme.

  Persons aged 16–19 either in employment or undertaking full-time education or training —Great Britain

  Spring estimates, thousands

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  U988

  Full-time1 employees

  1,261

  1,230

  1,189

  1,187

  1,190

  Part-time1 employees

  386

  410

  432

  457

  525

  Self-employed

  43

  45

  44

  42

  44

  On Government employment and training programmes2

  227

  290

  262

  299

  316

  Undertaking full-time education or training and not in employment3

  986

  912

  863

  870

  786

  1 Based on respondent's own assessment.

  2 Includes all on YTS, CI, CP, VPP and their predecessors, together with those in training courses under JTS, Training for Enterprise and Wider Opportunities Training Programme (successors of Training Opportunities programme or TOPS) who said they did some paid work in the survey reference week.

  3 Includes all still in continuous full-time education or (i) on a sandwich course, (ii) studying at university, polytechnic or college full-time, or (iii) training for a qualification in nursing, physiotherapy, or a similar medical subject.

  4 Preliminary estimates (1988 only).

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of fatal, major and minor accidents on YTS for the period January 1989 to March 1989; and how many YTS placements were closed or not accepted in the periods September to December 1988 and January 1989 to March 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Table A provides YTS accident figures for the period I January—31 March 1989.

  Table A

  YTS accidents 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989

  Accident1

  Period 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989

  Fatalities

  1

  Major Injuries2

  150

  Minor Injuries

  716

  302
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Claims for training fees submitted by training managers are subject to checks both within Training Agency area offices and at the training manager's premises.

  The checks include the comparison of claims with individual trainee records and information notified to unemployment benefit offices.

  Responsibility for Government programmes in Northern Ireland lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the managing and training agents operating in the North Tyneside travel-to-work area and the numbers of ET and YTS placements in each.

  Mr. Cope
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the age group 16 to 19 inclusive were(a) full-time employees in employment, (b) part-time employees in employment, (c) self employed, (d) not included above and on YOP, YTS, CP, or JTS or (e) not included in the above and undertaking full-time education or training, from spring 1984 for each year to spring 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  Available estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:

  1 Training Agency accident figures include accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Table B provides the figures of YTS placements closed or not accepted for the quarters 1 October 1988 to 31 December 1988 and 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989.

  Table B

  Closure and non acceptance of YTS placements 1 October 1988 to 31 December 1988 and 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989

  1 October 1988 to 31 December 1988

  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  Placements Closed

  36

  39

  Placements not accepted

  14

  19

  303
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS trainees had contracts of employment by Training Agency region, by male and female, at the most recent date, and at one year previously.

  31 December 1987

  31 December 1988

  Region

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Scotland

  1,451

  4,478

  1,759

  5,594

  Northern

  981

  2,055

  1,217

  2,672

  North West

  2,966

  6,690

  3,402

  8,822

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,503

  3,936

  3,543

  6,437

  West Midlands

  1,509

  3,696

  2,488

  6,261

  Wales

  412

  1,886

  720

  2,371

  South West

  1,202

  4,055

  1,560

  5,569

  South East

  1,846

  7,882

  2,553

  10,246

  London

  778

  4,210

  1,693

  5,630

  East Midlands and East Anglia

  2,280

  5,955

  3,189

  8,087

  TOTAL

  15,428

  41,147

  21,524

  61,689

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by male and female from the most recent YTS leavers survey those trainees leaving the scheme by destination classed as(a) full-time work with same employer, (b) full-time work with a different employer, (c) full-time education course, (d) another YTS, (e) other and (f) unemployment; and what is the percentage of early leavers.

  Mr. Cope
  The results of the YTS follow-up survey are available in the House of Commons Library.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to exempt from the poll tax seamen working and living on their vessels who have no other sole or main residence.

  Mr. Lang
  The question whether a person is solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority and thus liable to pay the personal community charge is for community charge registration officers to decide in the light of the facts and circumstances relating to individual cases. There are no plans to make special arrangements for seafarers.

  Roads
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total percentages of the Scottish Development Department's road budget which were allocated to the following roads in each of the past five years: (a) A/M74, (b) A77, (c) A9, (d) A92 and (e) A96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 May 1989]: The information is given in the following table:

  Expenditure as Percentage of Total Spend on Trunk Roads

  Financial Year/Route

  A/M74

  A77

  A9

  A92

  A96

  1984–85

  12·6

  2·2

  17·9

  11·5

  1·6

  1985–86

  19·2

  1·9

  18·3

  7·1

  1·4

  1986–87

  13·6

  1·7

  18·0

  4·4

  2·4

  1987–88

  13·6

  2·4

  15·1

  5·0

  7·3

  1988–87'

  9·9

  2·0

  9·9

  12·9

  4·8

  1 Estimate.

  304
  Mr. Cope
  The numbers of young people in training on YTS who were notified to the Training Agency as having contracts of employment as at 31 December 1987 and 31 December 1988 by region were as follows:

  Family Law (Scotland) Act
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to amend section 8(1)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 in order to allow the court to make orders in an action for divorce, for the payment of a capital sum and for the transfer of property.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any intention of bringing forward amending legislation in the light of Lord Morton's statement in the Court of Session in the case of Walker v. Walker that the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 would require amendment to permit an award of both transfer of property and a capital sum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A Court of Session judgment relating to this legislation was made on 9 May. The provision in question is in the terms suggested by the Scottish Law Commission. Until such time as the period during which an appeal may be made expires it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

  Weil's Disease
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of deaths, by occupational category, and by region, from Weil's disease in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Seven deaths from Weil's disease since 1968 have been recorded in Scotland. The information requested about these deaths is as follows:

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Occupation

  County or region

  1970

  1

  Not known

  Argyll

  1975

  1

  Not known

  Highland

  1979

  1

  Drawing office assistant

  Tayside

  1980

  2

  Farm worker

  Grampian

  Farmaer

  Central

  1983

  2

  University academic staff

  Tayside

  Farm worker

  Central

  Lowland Airports Policy
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the survey
  305
  of Scottish opinion which his office conducted in relation to the request by BAA plc for a review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such survey of Scottish opinion has been carried out by the Scottish Office. In reaching his decision on BAA's request for a review of the Scottish lowlands airports policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport took into account the support for maintaining the present status of Prestwick airport which had been expressed by representatives of all political parties, as well as other considerations.

  Direct Labour (Competition)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consultations about the competition requirements relating to direct labour organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The overall response rate to the consultation paper issued in October 1988 was low with only half of local authorities submitting comment. My right hon. and learned Friend was grateful to all those who did respond and has carefully considered the comments received. He has now decided that all building and maintenance work, other than highways and water and sewage work, should be subject to competition and that authorities should be prohibited from renewing maintenance contracts without first going out to tender. Emergency work will continue to be exempt but further consideration is being given to the scope for restricting the kinds of emergency work which can be carried out by direct labour organisations without competition.

  In the light of the responses received, my right hon. and learned Friend has also decided to defer the implementation date by six months to 1 April 1990 and to increase the exemption for direct labour organisations proposed in the consultation paper from five to 15 employees.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will increase resources for the trunk road programme in Scotland; and what proposals he has to alter his current policies and plans.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer to the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, announcing major developments in his motorway and trunk road programme. I particularly welcome his decision to place the main immediate priority in England on widening the M6, M1 and M25 motorways. These roads are Scotland's essential links to the major markets in the south and Europe.

  The road programme in Scotland will benefit substantially from the expanded programme announced today. As with England and Wales, of course detailed decisions about funding levels for particular years will be taken in the course of annual reviews of public expenditure. Under the normal formula arrangements the Scottish block will receive each year an equivalent share of the additional funds.

  I place major emphasis on improving inter-urban roads in Scotland. I have already announced that I am making additional funds available for national trunk roads over the current year and some 25 per cent. more for new
  306
  construction for the following two financial years. I now expect to be in a position to increase roads spending substantially further in future years reflecting the Government's commitment to improved roads infrastructure. Currently we have in preparation a formidable programme of schemes and studies.

  The financing of roads is no longer a matter solely for the Government. There is also a role for private finance to play in road provision in the future in Scotland as in England, where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said in his White Paper that he will be putting forward proposals on this question shortly.

  My right hon. Friend's White Paper also announced today new road traffic forecasts which are relevant to the standard of roads needed and to the estimates of their economic return. These new traffic forecasts will be applied similarly to planned Scottish road improvements.

  I shall outline how we are currently proposing to spend the available resources. Our largest single project is the planned M74 Glasgow to Carlisle motorway which will link with the M6, M1 and M25 routes. This project was announced in 1987: it alone expanded the trunk road programme by around 40 per cent. My Department has been working to a highly ambitious timetable to prepare this 100km of motorway and I now expect that advance works will start next year and, if progress continues will, even main works.

  To this end I am announcing today the first two schemes, one at either end of the A74 in Scotland. The northernmost scheme runs from Millbank to just north of Abington. The second scheme is the section from Gretna to Kirkpatrick Fleming. Development of these "fast-track" schemes will run ahead of the general development of the rest of the route. The consultants are finalising their reports for the whole length to be upgraded. Once these reports have been studied, we propose in the late summer or autumn to consult on a proposed preferred route for the whole road.

  A key issue is whether M74 schemes should be dual-two lane or dual-three lane standard. My Department has carefully assessed the two schemes that I have announced today in the light of the additional costs of dual-three lane over dual-two lane, the new higher traffic levels expected and the implications for disruption of traffic during the construction period. Following this full assessment, it is proposed that these two schemes will be built to dual-three lane standard. The standard to which subsequent schemes will be built will similarly be considered on their particular merits.

  A further motorway priority is completion of the central Scotland network. Some eight major motorway schemes are now being progressed rapidly. One is the M8 from Newbridge to the Edinburgh bypass. This is urgently required and I hope that firm proposals can be published this summer with a view to construction starting about two years thereafter.

  On the M80, advance works are well under way on the Stepps bypass, which will mark the start of three major schemes that will complete the motorway from Stirling to Glasgow. There are four other major motorway proposals at an advanced stage of preparation on the periphery of Glasgow. On the A77 several schemes are planned to complete the dual carriageway between Glasgow and Ayr.

  Important though the motorway network is to the economy of Scotland, the Government will continue to place equal priority on improving the whole 2,000 miles of

  307
  trunk road network throughout Scotland. In recent years this has meant, for example, the improvement of the A9 Perth-Inverness route, the Perth-Dundee-Aberdeen route, and the A75 Euro route to Stranraer.

  The top priority now for trunk roads is to make significant enhancements on the A96 Aberdeen-Inverness route to reduce accidents and journey times and to improve driving conditions on the route generally. The Government announced a six-point plan in December which set out a programme of work, current and planned, which will cost at least £70 million.

  One hundred miles of route cannot be re-engineered overnight. This programme therefore concentrates on addressing the priority problems first. It does so quickly and effectively. Where traffic flows are high, major schemes have been, are being or will be built. Where there are accidents occurring, remedial schemes are being implemented as a matter of urgency. Already, 30 sites for accident remedial treatment have been identified since the plan was announced and road markings are to be thoroughly overhauled. Where lack of overtaking opportunities are causing long queues of traffic, frustration and delays, we have instructed the regional council to plan to include regular safe overtaking stretches.

  The precise extent of further new schemes to improve the A96 and the speed with which they can now be implemented will depend in part on the actual amounts of new money which will become available from year to year following today's statement. I am pleased today however to be able to announce that major and early progress can be achieved. A key part of the six-point plan was to accelerate preparation of the major schemes so that they could be built if money were to become available from slippage elsewhere in the programme. I can now say that funds will be available for these major A96 schemes as soon as they are prepared. Further, in the light of both the new resources likely to be available and of the new traffic forecasts announced today, I will now be considering further significant improvements to the A96 which might be appropriate.
  308
  The trunk road programme now contains major schemes to improve almost all roads in the trunk road network. Further schemes will be added as studies identifying requirements are completed. In particular, my Department is about to recdeive final assessments from the "Routes South of Edinburgh" study. Before I make a final decision on the way forward in the light of the study, it is my intention to issue a consultation paper detailing the options which have emerged and inviting comment from a wide range of interests. I hope to be able to issue the consultation paper during the summer.

  I have also decided to instigate a further study to ensure that both trunk and other key principal roads, the vital links between major centres of Scotland, are in the best possible shape to meet the demands of the latter part of this century and into the next. No network wide general review of traffic flows, pressure points and potential to enhance development has been carried out for some time. If roads investment is to be substantially increased—and it is—it is critical to be sure that the money will be spent in the right places. It is particularly necessary, therefore, to review the situation now. The regional councils will have a role to play in this and my Department will be consulting them to discuss the way forward.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library details of each major publicity campaign mounted by his Department in 1985–86 and each successive year, including in each case the objectives of the campaign, the intended audience and the outcome of the monitoring of the achievement of the intended objectives, and national research conducted for him by the Central Office of Information together with a note of the intended objectives in the campaigns in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: Details have been placed in the Library today.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Traffic Distribution: Scotland
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now withdraw the order which compels civil aircraft operating a service between Glasgow Airport and airports in North America to land and take off also from Prestwick Airport on both outward and inward flights.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on 8th May my right honourable friend announced that the existing policy for the Scottish lowland airports is to continue and he subsequently has made new traffic distribution rules to give effect to that policy. Prestwick therefore remains the gateway airport for intercontinental services to and from Scotland.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when my noble friend next has the onerous duty of replying on behalf of the Department of Transport will he insist on getting from it a better answer than that? Is he aware that the Scottish courts, through Lord Dervaird, have ruled that that order is outwith the powers of the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State at the Perth party conference asked why an airline should not fly between any two destinations that it chooses? Why should it not?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not surprised at my noble friend's lack of enthusiasm for the reply that I gave. I am afraid that it was the best that I could manage today. I shall try to do better in the future. The recent ruling of the Scottish Court of Session dealt with the traffic distribution rules through which effect is given to the lowland airport policy and not with the merits of the policy itself, which must of course be a matter for the Government.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that even those of us who are enthusiastic about encouraging Prestwick think that that is an absolutely dotty way of doing it? If the Government's reasoning is that they will improve communications to Prestwick, which are far from good, can he say whether they have started the programme, what improvements they will make and when they may be completed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Prestwick is a fine airport. I hope to see it well used in its own right. On access, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced the intention of improving Prestwick's surface access. The Scottish Office will discuss with BR and Strathclyde PTE the best way to improve rail access, including the
1282
possibility of a station at the airport. There are also plans to improve the airport's road links. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in welcoming that initiative.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, what will be the increased cost per passenger mile to aircraft flying to the eastern seaboard of the United States as a result of making that unnecessary landing; and how might that be reflected in ticket prices?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have those figures with me. Some figures appeared in a national newspaper on Friday, but I have not been able to confirm whether they were accurate.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, may I have a written answer?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, how does that policy square with the comment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment at the recent Scottish Tory Party conference that it was a matter of the greatest importance to the whole of Scottish industry and commerce that artificial and unnecessary barriers to imports to and exports from Scotland, such as the national dock labour scheme, should be got rid of? How do we square that statement with the artificial preservation of the barriers against airports other than Prestwick?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a slightly different question. The Question on the Order Paper refers to a charter airline which has to land at Prestwick on its way from Glasgow to Florida.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a growing feeling in Scotland that the present situation of nominating Prestwick as the sole gateway airport for North American traffic is making everyone look ridiculous and that the Scottish press and everyone else is convinced that it is silly? Will the Minister convey to his right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport that if they intend to continue with that policy they should start to give the Scottish people some convincing reasons for it? Until now we have had no reasons. We have been given a bonus in terms of the fact that there may be a rail link and that in 10 years' time there may be a new motorway, but that does not remove the feeling that the whole thing is preposterous.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall of course convey the views that have been expressed today to my right honourable friends. There has been much debate about this matter and the need for a review, with arguments put on both sides. The arguments on the other side have been just as strong.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite the comment of the noble Lord,

1283
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the Government's decision is much welcomed by thousands of residents in the West of Scotland? It would be wrong for environmental reasons to have a city centre airport, such as Renfrew, carrying additional transatlantic traffic when there is an excellent transatlantic airport within 25 miles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am of course most grateful to the noble Lord. He confirms the fact that there are arguments on both sides.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is there not in fact transatlantic traffic going into Glasgow? The only problem is that it has to go via this other place.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, which other place? Long-haul services do not have to start in Glasgow. There are other ways of organising flight patterns so that transatlantic flights can start from Prestwick.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, how many times in a year may Glasgow airport be shut? Prestwick, because it is almost totally clear of any kind of fog, enjoys a great advantage.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the figures, but I agree with the noble Earl that Prestwick has an extremely good climate for flying into and out of.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the most hazardous part of any aircraft flight is during take-off or landing? Most accidents occur at those times. Will he further bear in mind that any unnecessary take-offs or landings double the risks?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the environmental considerations that is taken into account when we look at the future of Glasgow airport.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that the Secretary of State for Defence's majority of 187 might be a factor in the Government's calculations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that that is highly unlikely.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who criticise this odd, if not crazy, decision have no hostility towards Prestwick airport? I have the greatest admiration for it. But is he aware that, by making it a compulsory handicap for civil airlines which do not wish to use Prestwick, it is damaging the airline industry's general feeling of respect for it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all I can say is that I shall ensure that my right honourable friend reads and listens to what has been said in the debate.

Legal Services: US Comparisons
3.9 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in preparing their Green Papers on the legal profession they paid regard to the evidence of the United States Chief Justice to the Royal Commission on Legal Services on the proportion of damages awarded by United States courts which is absorbed by the costs of the contingent fee system and on the delays caused by the employment of inadequately trained advocates.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in seeking to frame the proposals I paid particular attention to the work that had been done by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. Chief Justice Warren Burger was a witness and I paid particular attention to his testimony.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. Does he not agree that the comments of the Chief Justice of the United States were very significant, as they have a combined profession there? He said that the contingency fees of inadequately trained lawyers probably took about half of the damages awarded. Will my noble and learned friend look very carefully at the matter of contingency fees? There is more and more opinion coming from the United States that such fees increase costs, lead to ambulance-chasing and the stirring up of litigation, often frivolous and fraudulent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Civil Justice Review recommended that we consider further the question of arrangements such as contingency fees. One of the Government's Green Papers has attempted to do that. We have received a great number of responses and I shall take the observations of my noble and learned friend as a further response. A number of different views have been expressed on the various options there put forward.
So far as concerns improperly trained advocates, I have sought to take account of that in the proposals in the Green Papers. Many of the responses are also directed to that question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us who are mere laymen are amazed and astounded at the tremendous debate which took place in the House from nine o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night? No profession other than the legal profession would have organised the debate on a discussion paper in that way. It is an amazing tribute to the trade union movement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord considers that the standard of the debate was high. I personally found it extremely useful.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend note that the professions

1285
welcomed his remarks the other day that he regarded their responses as constructive? He indicated that he regarded them as not being involved in a trade union activity but seeking to serve the public. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the responses of the professions are directed towards precisely that end of seeking to provide the best service to the public?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend quotes exactly what I said. I do not believe that I made any reference to trade unions in my response. However, I accept that the rest of what he said is the substance of my remarks and that the responses are extremely full and constructive. Naturally they are not all in the same direction. The question now is, in the light of the responses, what is the correct direction in which to move?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, in the light of the massive attendance of his colleagues from the legal trade union at the debate on the Green Papers, last Friday none of his colleagues was available when we discussed the fate of their clients in the debate on the report on the parole system by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a number of my noble and learned friends were present on 7th April and contributed to the debate. I myself was here at the start of the debate on the report on the parole system which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I certainly do not recollect noticing that any of my noble and learned friends managed to be present on that occasion.
Lord Benson: My Lords, for the removal of doubt, perhaps I may say that the question I ask is put in a helpful and not a critical spirit. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had a chance to read the submission made to him dated 26th April by Lloyd's of London on contingency fees? That submission supports the evidence referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not think that under those conditions it would be prudent to modify or amend the statement which he made to the House on 16th May at col. 1039 of Hansard:
"Therefore, at the moment I am simply claiming that these proposals, if implemented, would not increase costs"?
Does the noble and learned Lord not think it particularly important to modify or amend that statement, having regard to the fact that two days ago he also said that no research had been carried out by the Government before the Green Papers were issued?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to paraphrase exactly what I said two days ago. I said that my aim in the Green Papers was to propose the removal of unnecessary restrictions. The removal of unnecessary restrictions would not increase costs.
Of course I entirely accept that the debate in relation to the Green Papers is as to whether or
1286
not all or any of the matters covered in them are unnecessary restrictions. There is the question of whether the present restriction on contingency fees is necessary or unnecessary in the interests of the standards of conduct in the profession.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question on the Order Paper relates to contingency fees does my noble and learned friend not agree that potential defendants are at least as entitled to a fair crack of the whip as potential plaintiffs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. It is one reason why the speculative action on the Scottish model is perhaps better than the contingency fee arrangement in America, because it is available to potential defenders as well as to potential pursuers in that country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with respect to what I think is called the Family Division, does the noble and learned Lord know that very often families in conflict with one another go to court? They then find themselves greatly burdened with solicitors' expenses. One report which I read said that that was often the cause of suicides. Will that be examined in the context of the Green Papers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the overall objective of all the proposals which I have sought to make deals with costs and accessibility. I aim to avoid unnecessary costs. Sometimes there are of course great difficulties in family litigation. Among the actions that were initiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was a study of the conciliation service. That study has recently reported and a good deal of discussion is taking place on the report. As often happens on these occasions, the views on the conclusions of the report are not unanimous. However, that is an important development which I hope we shall be able to take forward.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend considered the increased costs involved in liability insurance in the event of the introduction of the contingency fee system? Does he also realise that, if the cost of liablity insurance is increased, that cost would be directly attributable to the general cost of living and the cost of every single item produced either by the manufacturing or the service industries?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I am aware of the general effect on costs of the producers of goods having to bear the costs of litigation. I have that in mind. One also has to bear in mind the rights of those who may be injured as a result of products. As usual, it is a question of balancing the various interests. I am sure that the contribution of Lloyd's of London to the responses, as well as the other contributions we have received, will help us to reach a just balance in the result.

Legal Services: US Evidence
3.18 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place in the Library the evidence of the Chief Justice of the United States (Hon. Warren Burger) to the Royal Commission on Legal Services on July 22nd 1977 on the relative time taken by a case in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the evidence given by the Chief Justice to the Royal Commission on Legal Services will be placed in the Library today.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for doing that. When he gave evidence to the English Royal Commission, was not the Chief Justice of the United States in effect saying "Don't go the path of the American administration of law. Follow your own path"? Is it not a fact that he also stated that a case which takes a day or perhaps a day-and-a-half to be tried in this country takes five to 10 days in the United States? Is that not something which my noble and learned friend will look at very closely indeed before he advises his friends in the Cabinet about any legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall most certainly consider that. I noted in the debate that took place on the consultation paper concerning the Scottish legal profession that someone quoted my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who was of course quoting another. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone had said, "Reform? Reform? … Are things not bad enough already?" I am certainly not seeking to promote reforms which will make matters worse in this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has attributed that witticism to me, is he aware that the true author was the late Mr. Justice Astbury?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of that. However, I think the quotation was attributed to my noble and learned friend in the report of the debate on the Scottish paper.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that Chief Justice Warren Burger, during his many years as Chief Justice of the United States, paid a number of visits to this country, had discussions with the judiciary here and became thoroughly familiar with our own laws of civil procedure? Therefore, he was in a uniquely qualified position to compare the two systems and draw the conclusions he did.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly the retired Chief Justice of the United States was very familiar with the system here and that on the other side of the Atlantic. However, I am not absolutely certain whether he was uniquely familiar with it. I
1288
have had an opportunity of discussing my Green Papers with Chief Justice Warren Burger since they were published. As I informed your Lordships some time ago, along with the Speaker of another place I was awarded an honorary doctorate by the College of William and Mary, of which Chief Justice Warren Burger is the chancellor. I had the opportunity of a very full evening's discussion with him on the matters raised by the Green Papers.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the massive controversy which the proposals in the Green Papers have raised, and bringing the matter somewhat nearer home, does this not point to the necessity for a White Paper to be issued before any steps are taken to legislate on the proposals in the Green Papers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble and learned Lord at the conclusion of the debate to which some reference has already been made, the precise form of our announcement will depend upon the content of it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, when will this sombre, oracular announcement be made as regards the decision-making?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I again intimated on that occasion, it is my hope that we shall be able to make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess, which I hope will not be unduly delayed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989 will be taken.

Water Bill
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness 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 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 49 [Powers to disconnect service pipes and cut off supplies]:
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 318A:
Page 55, line 37, at beginning insert—

("in the case of a supply provided under section 46 above").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 318C and 320C. These amendments have been grouped with the two amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey; namely, Amendments Nos. 318B and 320ZA. I imagine the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will speak to those amendments at the same time.
My amendments seek to ensure that whenever a consumer is in arrears with payments, no disconnection of the water supply will be made without the undertaker having first obtained a court order. The code of practice on disconnections is to be included in the licence to supply. That is certainly welcomed. Indeed, the code of practice recognises the function of the county court in dealing with customers in default. However, there are two exemptions which I find disturbing. I shall read the relevant paragraph contained in the procedure that the water companies must follow before cutting off supply. The third paragraph of that procedure states:
"However, we may not issue a County Court summons where (i) you have previously been the subject of Court proceedings for the recovery of unpaid water charges, or (ii) you have broken an agreement with us to avoid or settle legal proceedings for the recovery of water charges".
I believe these exemptions specifically exclude the very people who may be in the greatest financial difficulty and most in need of the court's protection. It is surely unfair to exclude consumers who in the past have had an order made in the county court for water charge arrears with which they have perhaps complied. It is probable that these are people with low incomes. They may be single parents with families, elderly people living alone, or disabled people. One could go on and on for ever. Circumstances could well determine that these people, in striving to make ends meet, could find themselves again with water charge arrears. It is unthinkable that their water supply could be cut off without the court again examining the whole of their total indebtedness in deciding how best their commitments can be met. I think it is important to consider their total indebtedness.
The second exemption excludes a person who has never had the opportunity to have the county court consider his circumstances. It is obviously preferable for cases of arrears to be dealt with before they come to the county court, if possible, and for a consumer to try to negotiate and agree on repayment rates with the water undertaker, so avoiding court costs. It is understandable that consumers may wish to do that. However, they sometimes enter unwise agreements. They may attempt to repay Peter by robbing Paul, and eventually find that that cannot be done. Again they are forced to break the agreement they have made with the water undertaker. Surely in this case it is right that these agreements should be examined by the court and the total indebtedness of the individual considered before any disconnection of the supply occurs.
The citizens advice bureaux, the National Consumer Council and many other organisations are deeply concerned about these exemptions and the codes of practice. There is evidence to show
1290
that the number of disconnections has been rising steadily over the past three years. The citizens advice bureaux can give many instances of the considerable hardship and misery caused by some of these disconnections. These amendments may help reverse that rising trend.
Water is a vital commodity. It is vital for health and for life itself. No one should be deprived of a supply on account of his inability to pay for it at the time of receiving it. I feel very strongly about this. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some favourable response. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in general terms, and also to speak to my Amendments Nos. 318B and 320ZA. Those amendments approach the same problem from a slightly different standpoint but one which I hope will gain the approval of the Government and/or the Committee.
In moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said rightly that the number of disconnections of water has already increased. That is certainly the case, but it has not increased to anything like the same extent as disconnections of gas in the year to March 1988, which was the first year after privatisation of British Gas. In that year disconnections of gas rose by 25 per cent. over the previous year and by 60 per cent. over the preceding year. It is clear that, because of the change in priorities forced on the undertakers concerned, privatisation brings with it increased pressure for disconnection. Any increase that has already occurred in water disconnections must be expected to become very much worse as privatisation approaches and as the date of privatisation passes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, rightly said, disconnection of water is a very much more serious matter than disconnection of gas or electricity or of any other form of energy, serious though that is. For almost any form of energy there is a substitute. For gas there would be electricity; for electricity presumably there would be candles or paraffin. For water there is no substitute. As soon as water ceases to be available to a household, that household is in a worse position than it would have been in the Middle Ages, worse than in a period when people were able to draw their water from wells or from rivers because the wells no longer exist and the rivers are polluted. We are reverting to a position with a degree of primitiveness which is difficult to imagine.
Incidentally, if anyone thinks that neighbours will be allowed to help out in those circumstances, the Bill contains specific provisions to prevent neighbours from helping out those whose water has been disconnected.
The situation is serious and will become significantly worse, not only because water is essential to life and health but because the pressure on families most in need is increasing for other reasons. The pressure is increasing because the conditions of social security provision in this country have increased that pressure over the past few years. I am not an expert on the subject and I do not intend

1291
to go into a great deal of detail, but it is clear that changes in social security payments, particularly since April 1988, have made a significant difference to the ability of the poorest families in our country to deal with their bills for essential items such as water.
Before April 1988 there was a system which amounted in most cases to direct payment of water charges by the benefit authorities on behalf of most supplementary benefit claimants. The Committee will recall that half a million income support claimants, as they are now called, received no increase at all in April 1988. Another half a million received increases of less than their full cost of living increases because their benefits were frozen or restricted under what were called the transitional protection provisions. At the same time, in 1988 there were swingeing reductions in housing benefit which affected the ability of those poorest families to pay their bills for essential services. That meant that water, like other essentials, had to be paid for by forgoing food and clothing and other items which one might regard as essential but which would have to be sacrificed if water was to be available.
From April 1988 not only was the specific allowance for water rates within supplementary benefit abolished but a number of housing authorities and housing associations stopped acting as agents for the collection of water charges for the water authority and left their tenants in the position of having to face the water supplier directly. The Government claim that compensation has been made in income support to equal average water rates. Of course nobody pays average water rates; they pay their own water rates, which is a rather different matter.
However, even if one accepted the concept of average water rates, the Government are now in effect backing away from the claim that compensation has been adequately calculated to deal with the cost of water rates. In January 1988 the Government were prepared to say in reply to a Parliamentary Question that there was a figure for compensation which matched the average. In January 1989, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from Mr. Dennis Turner MP, the ministerial line was that there was no specific figure.
Those changes in the social security system intensify the problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. They intensify the difficulties which the poorest families, as he rightly described them, will have in paying their water charges, whatever form those charges take.
Perhaps I may comment on the noble Lord's specific remedy that no disconnection should take place until the matter has been to a county court. There are many good arguments in favour of that proposal which have good precedents. Before a matter can go to the county court there will have to be some form of debt counselling, because these people are not only failing to pay their water rates; they are failing to pay a number of bills of which water rates are only one. The county court will have to take into account all of a family's debts. It will have to take responsibility for negotiating affordable
1292
repayment rates for all of the debts, not simply the water rate debts. Water authorities and water companies cannot be expected to involve themselves in debts other than those for water. County courts can and should do so. That is why it is better that the matter should go through the county court.
At the same time there is a strong argument that the water undertakings should be obliged to take the initiative in providing easier methods of payment of water charges: for example, payment by instalments, by stamps, paying-in books, or prepayment meters. The code of practice on disconnection does not provide for that. It puts the onus for finding a method to pay on the customer and not on the water undertaking.
We welcome the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee two weeks ago that the code of practice on disconnections would become enforceable. We understand that it is proposed that that should happen by means of a condition in the water undertaking's licence However, even if the code of practice is to become enforceable—and I am not satisfied at the moment that the government proposals for enforceability are good enough—the code of practice itself is not good enough because it does not include the provisions to which I have already referred. It does not deal with what ought to be the responsibility of the water undertakings to make it easier for their customers to pay charges in a way which they can afford on a more regular, instalment basis.
What happens when there is no reference to the county court and the county court cannot take responsibility? Enforcement and disconnection tend to take place when the companies disconnect someone who has already received a court order for non-payment of water rates or who has broken an agreement. Those people who already have court orders against them or who break agreements are precisely those who have been so intimidated by the threat of disconnection that they make unrealistic proposals to their creditors for repayment. Then, inevitably, as soon as someone else comes along and says, "You owe us money", they break those agreements.
All those factors lead us to think that the reference to the county court proposed in the noble Lord's amendment should at the very least find the support of the Government and the Committee. But, as will become clear, our amendments go further than that. We say that there should be no power to disconnect and that subsection (8) of Clause 49 should be deleted. That may seem to be an extreme position, but, if one puts it in the context of public health legislation, it is not an extreme position at all. There is still adequate provision for the water undertakings to secure that they get their money without that final sanction of disconnection. They could still install, for example, coinless pre-payment meters if they were inclined to do so. They could still make arrangements—with or without the benefit of debt counsellors, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux or any of the other people who are concerned with the serious problem of family poverty—in order to secure that they get their money.

1293
However, we argue that in a piece of public health legislation—that is what we are concerned with here for that is, in a sense, what the Bill is—the threat of disconnection is entirely inappropriate and should be taken off the face of the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Wise, decides to pursue his amendment to the vote, we shall certainly support it. If, on the other hand, he decides not to do so, I should give notice that we may feel it necessary to pursue our own amendments to the vote.
Lord Blyth: I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to stop water being disconnected without a court order. Perhaps I may present to the Committee a scenario in which a computer has spat out a disconnection order. It may concern a mother, perhaps in a high-rise flat, with children and babies but no water to wash them and a blocked lavatory because there is no water to flush it. Do we not have, both as a Chamber and as a nation, enough decency and humanity to ensure that that situation cannot arise without a court order? I implore the Government to accept the amendment or something similar and the Committee, should it find it necessary, to vote for it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to take on board a further aspect of this matter. Clause 49 provides that:
"a water undertaker may disconnect a service pipe which for the purposes of providing a supply of water to any premises is connected with any water main of that undertaker, or may otherwise cut off a supply of water to any premises".
It then gives the circumstances in which that may occur and states that:
"the occupier of the premises—

(i) is liable…to pay charges due to the undertaker in respect of the supply of water to those premises".

The point that I want the noble Lord to take on board is that this matter concerns a retailer who will be given, by law, a power to cut off the supply of his commodity, i.e. water. There are very few other suppliers or retailers who have that power. We are talking here about people in desperate straits and for whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, rightly said, the non-payment of a water bill is probably one of a number of non-payments. If one takes the whole of the retail trade, there are a great many other credit givers.
We are concerned about the way in which the Bill as drafted, if the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend are not incorporated, will give a retailer—that is all a water undertaker will be, although he will be a retailer of a precious commodity—the power, under law, to cut off a supply. That case has been very well made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. That is a special privilege for water companies. I believe that the noble Lord has a case to make. I very much hope that he will say sufficient for the noble Lord and my noble friend to consider whether they will press their amendments. But the case must be made why retailers of water should be placed in a special position with regard to the punitive and draconian measures that they can take in comparison with other retailers.
Lord Addington: We on these Benches wholeheartedly support the sentiments encapsulated within this group of amendments. It seems absolutely ridiculous to be enabled to cut off such a basic, natural resource as water, which is essential to all forms of life. As has already been stated, it is virtually impossible to live in anything like a vaguely civilised manner without water. I can only say that we shall give our full support to the amendments if they are put to a vote.
Lord Alport: I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wise. I happen to live very near one of the main installations of one of the statutory water companies and I therefore know a little about it. It was recently taken over by a very good and admirable French company. For over 150 years the company had been most efficient and efficiently run, providing water for east London—the poorest part of London—and west Essex where there has been a good deal of unemployment and deprivation in the past.
With the new shareholders coming into the picture, new criteria have no doubt been used by the board of directors. It may therefore be a coincidence that within a relatively short time—a few weeks, or two or three months—of the new shareholders taking over control of the company, 18,000 final notices, with a threat to withdraw the water supply immediately from those who had not paid their bill, were issued. Of course one should pay one's water bill. It is not always the most popular bill, and it must be paid once or twice a year, but it should be paid.
Thinking of the circumstances of the part of the county which that admirable company supplies and knowing many of the social problems that exist there, I should have thought we would be far better advised to ensure that there should be, so to speak, the judical or legal sieve of the county courts. We could therefore ensure protection in circumstances in which a person will be deprived—perhaps quite legitimately by the water company for not paying his water dues—of one of the essentials of life. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, there is no alternative supplier of water than the water companies. It would therefore be a wise thing to do.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A wise thing!
Lord Alport: That is a compliment to my noble friend. It would be a wise thing to do in both senses of the word. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I can assure the Government and my noble friend the Minister that this is one of the most sensitive issues that have come before the Chamber with regard to the future reputation of the Government. If the proposal goes wrong—in the sense that a great many people are deprived of that essential part of the normal life of a family in this country as a result of financial conditions in circumstances which may perhaps in a year or two's time be rather different from those that we have at the moment—the Government's reputation will be greatly damaged. I therefore hope that they will accept this amendment or introduce their own

1295
amendment along the lines of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I believe that the proposition to cut off a person's supply of water in the event of non-payment is one of the most uncivilised proposals that I have ever heard. When I served in the other place I often came across people who had not paid their electricity or gas bills. I used to go to see them, and their condition, deprived of the means of light, heat and cooking, was dire. But what on earth will be their condition if they have no water either? Frankly it is difficult for me to find words to describe the disgusting squalor in which such a family would have to live.
I came a little late to the debate and perhaps this point has already been made, but let us not forget that it is not only a matter of supplying water for drinking and washing but of supplying water for sewerage purposes as well. One can imagine the conditions prevailing in a house in which there is no running water and therefore no means to flush away the sewage. What on earth is the kind of civilisation that would contemplate such a situation?
I was a member of the Reading County Borough Council Water Committee and later a member of the Thames Valley Water Board. We never cut off anyone's water supply. There were other means of redressing the fault and getting debts paid. One of them included going to court and obtaining an order for distraint. That is quite different from cutting off people's water.
If the Minister will not listen to the pleas that have been made this afternoon, I hope that this Committee will indeed agree to one or other of the amendments before it, because it would be a national disgrace should this Chamber, cognisant as it is of the feelings and needs of ordinary people, not do something to rectify the matter.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow through from the remarks of my noble friend but take a slightly different line. If the Government are not prepared to accept the inhumanity involved in this measure, surely they must recognise that there are laws to deal with matters of public health when there is no water supply available even for sewerage.
I can recollect the case of a man who lived in a very expensive house in the town of Surbiton in Surrey, a Tory part of the country. He must have had a brain storm or something, but the only way that entry could be gained to his house in order to deal with the difficulty was by exercising powers under the public health Acts, which, generally speaking, state that when there is no water available, particularly to deal with the sewerage, it constitutes an action in contravention of the public health Acts. Surely that situation still prevails.
Leaving aside the inhumanity involved, which one can hardly think of without feeling a sense of revulsion, how does it affect the relationship of the one house to the others immediately adjacent to it?
1296
Particularly in built up areas, one house is very much connected to the neighbouring houses as regards the water supply. Surely the Government have thought about that. It seems quite extraordinary that they should introduce such a measure. I should like to underline what the noble Lord opposite said. If the Government want to lose votes, this is the most certain way for them to do it. It is even more certain than acting upon the doctors and the health service. I do not know why we bother to warn them or advise them; it is not to our advantage. But we speak for the people.
This is a very serious matter. I plead with the Government that if they do not have regard to the inhumanity of this measure, let them take note that the public health Acts are very specific in this area.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to make one comment on this point. We are referring back to Clause 46, which concerns the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. I must point out in bringing in Clause 46 that the people who have been mentioned so far are those who will be involved in water supply for domestic purposes. I think that that point is worth making.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find it very odd that anyone should believe that cutting off the water supply from an individual or a family is the best or even a good way of encouraging them to pay the bill. I was astonished to hear the suggestion made this afternoon that a neighbour who helps to supply water to a person in that situation would himself be committing an offence. I put to the Committee that neighbours will in fact rally round, take hosepipes along and buckets of water and fill kettles. The result will be a major local row but it will not have the effect of ensuring payment of bills.
I should have thought that going to court or using the method of attachment of wages which has been so widely and effectively used would be a much more sensible way of extracting money, albeit over a long period, and perhaps in relation to other debts accumulated by that person. It cannot be in the interests of the water undertakers to use such draconian means which will bring upon them the ire of the whole of the local population.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say a word in explanation to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. The substantial amendments refer to Clause 45, which deals with domestic water supply. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 318A and 318B, exclude non-domestic suppliers under Clause 46 from the prohibition on disconnection. If the noble Earl will look again at that, I think he will find that, although there may be technical defects, this is not one of them.
Lord Wolfson: This is a very sensitive and human issue which concerns an indispensable commodity. I think that the case has been very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and other Members of the Committee. I wish to support this amendment. I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to what has been said in all parts of

1297
the Chamber and, as has been stated, will either bring forward their own amendment or accept this one.
Baroness Blatch: There is considerable sympathy for the case being put. However, I should like to interject a note of balance into the discussion because so far it has been very one-sided. It is important to realise that this is an absolute situation. There shall be no disconnections of water for domestic purposes. I know that the exemption has been made for non-domestic purposes.
I am concerned that at the end of the day, in addition to having a very real concern for the people who have been described in this debate—and I have every concern for them—I should wish to see the most stringent code of practice possible applied and every possible measure taken to see that people are not left without a water supply and that bills are paid with assistance of one kind or another. However, this measure denies the water companies the option of a last resort in the case of anybody, even habitual non-payers who have not paid not because of reasons given so far in the debate but because they simply will not pay. If there is no last resort sanction, in my view we shall see an increase in the number of people who do not meet their bills not because of the circumstances in which they find themselves but because they know that whatever they do disconnection will not be a course of action that is open to the water companies.
I believe that that point should at least be made considering the amount of sympathy there has been in the debate, which I support, so far.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: One speaks about the last resort, but that is not a simple matter for the person involved. It is easy to say but when someone comes and turns off the water, it must seem almost like the end of the world. I speak as a magistrate. We find so often that quite considerable fines are imposed in the magistrates' courts and the person is brought before the court time and again to try to obtain the money from him. It is cheaper to bring him back and forth to the court to try to obtain the money than to send him to prison.
When we speak of non-payment, we have to realise that many people do not have enough money to go round each week. It is as simple as that. One only has to miss one's housing benefit for two weeks, for some reason or another, for large debts to arise. It might not be one's fault, but simply that the money has not come through the normal channels. One finds this where a man may have taken up a job for two, three or four months. All his benefits are cut off because he has obtained a low-paid job. When that finishes after three, four or six months, he does not go straight back on to the benefits that he previously received. He has to start all over again going through all the benefits procedure. It is about a fortnight or three weeks before he receives state benefit again.
That is the problem. A person may get into considerable debt, and it is not his fault. We are often told that ours is a caring community. I should
1298
have thought that the last thing any government or official would do would be to turn the water off.
Let us take an example. The electricity and gas boards have been in a great deal of trouble because they have turned off the electricity or gas of elderly people. It has been found that they were in very serious or dire circumstances. The electricity and gas boards were rapped over the knuckles for turning gas and electricity off from the mains outside. These utilities also have had to solve the problem of people who cannot pay their bills. Electricity and gas are cut off in very few cases because these services have made other arrangements for the collection of the money. It might be over a longer period. Perhaps the Government can consider how the gas and electricity industries have been able to tackle this problem, and perhaps some solution can be found along the lines that those two utilities have used.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): Clause 49 sets out the limited circumstances in which a water undertaker is able to cut off supplies of water for domestic and non-domestic purposes. The undertaker has powers to do so to carry out necessary work, for non-payment of charges and at the request of the consumer.
The effect of Amendment No. 318B would be to preclude disconnection of domestic customers for non-payment. Amendment No. 318C, however, would enable an undertaker to disconnect a domestic customer for non-payment of water charges only where the customer had failed to comply with a court order requiring the amounts due. He or she must have been served with at least 14 days' notice of disconnection but despite that have still not paid.
Amendment No. 318A is consequential to that. Amendment No. 320ZA would have the effect of removing the requirement on the undertaker to notify the local authority within 48 hours of cutting off a supply to an inhabited house. This is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 318B, which seeks to disallow any disconnections of domestic water supplies except for the purposes of necessary works or at the request of the customer.
Amendment No. 320C would, as an alternative to Amendment No. 318C, provide that before disconnection takes place for non-payment of water charges it should be the county court that has the sole jurisdiction of the charges due. In other words, the county court and not the undertaker would decide how these charges should be paid before the undertaker could proceed to disconnection. It is our policy that disconnection of supply for domestic customers should be very much a matter of last resort for companies dealing with that small minority of customers who can pay their charges but refuse to do so.
My honourable friend the Minister for water welcomed in another place the water industry's revisions to its disconnection code of practice when they were announced in February last as the code provided important new customer safeguards. These were: first, making clear that direct payments may

1299
be made by the DSS from income support benefits; secondly, providing for a seven-day final notice of arrears of debt; thirdly, making disconnection normally contingent upon county court judgment for debt; and finally, extending the minimum period of notice of disconnection from seven to 14 days.
These safeguards supplemented those already contained in the existing code of practice which provides for special attention to be given to the needs of the aged and vulnerable, explains where help and advice can be obtained and refers to the instalment arrangements which can be agreed to pay off arrears of debt. This revised code was much stronger than anything previously enjoyed by the water consumer and is unsurpassed by any other utility. As I shall say in a moment, however, we now feel able to go even further.
Clause 49 provides that an undertaker is not able to cut off a customer for non-payment of charges where the customer disputes his liability to pay except where, first, the undertaker has obtained a judgment against the customer under subsection (4)(a); or, secondly, where the customer has broken an agreement with the undertaker to avoid or settle legal proceedings for the recovery of those charges entered into since he disputed his liability to pay. This is under subsection (4)(b). The disconnection code of practice covers all disconnections for non-payment and therefore supplements these Bill provisions. Each appointed company is to be required under condition G of the model instrument of appointment to prepare such a code and to submit it to the director general. The condition also requires the appointed company with every demand for payment of charges to draw the attention of domestic customers to the existence of the code in its revised form and how they may inspect or obtain a copy.
I am happy to say that we have today announced a further strengthening of the disconnections code of practice. The privatised water companies will in almost all cases now be required to seek recovery of debt in the county court before taking action to disconnect a customer. Under our revised proposals the only exception, apart from the special circumstances provided for in subsection (4)(b) which I described earlier, will be where a customer has been subject to previous court proceedings, and the court has found in the company's favour, and the charges still remain unpaid. This change follows those already announced by my noble friend Lord Caithness to your Lordships on 4th May whereby the principles of the disconnection procedure will be written into the terms of appointment of each company, with each company's own code being approved by the director general.
These two announcements, taken together, represent a major improvement for the domestic customers which is without precedent in any other utility. Unlike under the industry's revised code, therefore, customers will be entitled to county court consideration of their circumstances even where they have broken a repayment agreement, except for the special circumstances in subsection (4)(b), and even though they have been subject to previous court proceedings provided that they have complied with
1300
the terms of the judgment. This meets the points raised in another place by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and others that even the industry's revised code would discriminate against those in multiple debt.
We have therefore arrived at a procedure which is to all intents and purposes consistent with what my noble friend Lord Wise seeks to achieve by his Amendments Nos. 318A, 318C and 320C. Let me repeat that in almost all circumstances, before proceeding to disconnection, the undertaker will have obtained a court judgment for arrears of debt and those arrears remain yet unpaid.
The only real distance between my noble friend and myself is that his procedure under Amendment No. 318C is made enforceable through the Bill, while under our proposals the principles of the disconnection procedure which we have announced are enforceable through the licence. The licence is enforceable through the Bill. We believe that our version has the merit of being capable of modification and development by the director general, so that even greater customer protection could be achieved if necessary.
However, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in removing under Amendment No. 318B the right of a company as a matter of last resort to disconnect a domestic customer for non-payment, is advocating what amounts to a free water policy. In the experience of the water industry, a small minority of customers choose not to pay their water charges even after a county court order has been obtained. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained in another place, for this minority the water undertakers must retain their right as a last resort to disconnect supply. If not, the consequence would be an increase in the number of customers who do not pay and an increase in the charges for those who do.
I find that the dropping of the requirement under Amendment No. 320ZA to notify the local authority of disconnections is curious since it is the fact rather than the cause of the disconnection which is relevant. Even if disconnection of domestic customers was not allowed, it would still be relevant for the local authority to be notified of disconnections for other reasons in order to protect public health.
In conclusion, it may be helpful if I compare the disconnection procedure that we are proposing in the Bill and under the licence with present practice. First, and most importantly, instead of the undertaker being able to disconnect a domestic water supply because of non-payment without going through the courts, it will now in virtually every case have to take such action. Secondly, it is the county court rather than the magistrates' court which is to consider these cases. Thirdly, where county court action is taken, the company cannot then proceed to disconnection unless the charges remain unpaid. Fourthly, even then the undertaker should make reasonable attempts to contact the customer with a view to agreeing a payment arrangement, failing which the undertaker would give due notice of disconnection. Fifthly, these principles are to be

1301
written, together with other customer safeguards, into the licence itself and will be enforceable by the director general.
Finally, one small point, which is that the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Murray, both referred to a neighbour not being able to help another neighbour. We are slightly sad that they did not put their names down to the government amendment which follows, Amendment No. 321A, which removes that suggestion from the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Wise will be able to see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Wise, will speak last because his amendment comes first. But I thought that it might be helpful if I said a few words because I had threatened—I believe that is the right word—that I would continue to move Amendment No. 318B, even if the noble Lord, Lord Wise, withdrew Amendment No.318A.
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. I shall not ask him for a transcript of his speech on this occasion because he said the most important things three times for emphasis. As I understand it, he is going 99 per cent. of the way towards meeting the noble Lord's objections and a considerable part of the way to removing the necessity for our more radical proposals in Amendment No. 318B. I consider the effect of this debate and the Government's decisions today to be a victory for consumers of water. I congratulate the Government on having made that victory possible without forcing me to divide the Committee on the matter.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: Before we leave this subject, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. We all appreciate clearly the fact that codes of practice do not have the force of law, which might worry some people. We also noted very carefully the fact that the director general will have the power to ensure that licence conditions are adhered to. That is also very satisfactory. Does the Bill in any way bar action in the courts by customers in the case of a breach of a licence condition or non-performance of a licence condition? To put it another way, can a customer who has been wronged as a result of the water undertaking not complying with its code of practice go to law to have this answered?
Lord Hesketh: As we have proceeded through the Bill over the last five days, the answer is that on certain occasions and in certain circumstances they can. The Bill has provided enhancement of customer's rights with regard to the undertaker.
Lord Wise: I should first like to thank all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee who have supported the amendments. Indeed we are grateful. I am deeply appreciative of the remarks of my noble friend the Minister. I am certain that his remarks will also be appreciated by the general public. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 318B to 318D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 56, line 12, after ("secure") insert—

("(a)").

The noble Lord said: Clause 49 sets out the circumstances in which a water undertaker will be able to cut off supplies of water. The undertaker will have powers to do this to carry out necessary works, for non-payment of charges and at the request of the consumer. In cases where the undertaker cuts off a supply to carry out necessary works, he will be under a duty to ensure that the works are carried out with reasonable dispatch. He will not, however, as the clause stands, be required to provide an alternative supply of water.
In cases where the disconnection will last longer than 24 hours and therefore may begin to cause considerable inconvenience to the customer, we think it only reasonable that the undertaker should be required to provide an alternative supply. Amendments Nos. 319 and 320 provide for this. The alternative supply would normally be by means of a standpipe or a water tanker. For disconnections lasting less than 24 hours, a customer should, with a little economy in his use of water, be able to withstand the effects of the disconnection without too much inconvenience through using the supply of water retained within the system. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These appear to be reasonable and helpful amendments. I am pretty sure that we welcome them. The only question is whether the Minister is proposing a closer definition of what is meant by "a reasonable distance"? This matter has caused considerable concern in all the privatisation measures. If he were able to define it more closely or to indicate where it is defined, I should find that helpful.
Lord Hesketh: We believe that that is a matter for the courts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 56, line 13, after ("and") insert—

("(b) that any supply of water to those premises for domestic purposes is interrupted for more than twenty-four hours for the purposes of the carrying out of those works only if an emergency supply has been made available (whether or not in pipes) within a reasonable distance of those premises; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 320ZA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 320ZB:
Page 56, line 46, after ("Where") insert ("by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is not about the merits or demerits of disconnection for domestic purposes. We have had that debate. Nor does it argue against the need to inform local authorities of disconnections because of non-payment of water charges. It is about lessening bureaucracy.
Clause 49(8) requires a water undertaker to notify a local authority within 48 hours of cutting off the water supply or disconnecting a supply of water to

1303
any domestic house. The power is given under three categories: first, when carrying out operational work; secondly, for non-payment of bills; and thirdly, when the consumer by agreement no longer wishes to have a supply of water. In the Bill as drafted there is no distinction between those three categories. I am concerned that there should be no unnecessary notices served on local authorities.
I was slightly puzzled by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to remove this subsection. I did not glean from the previous debate the reason for that proposal but it is possible that I may secure his support for my amendment. My own region—the Anglian region—is typical of the 10 authorities. During the course of a year there are 1,900 disconnections for non-payment of bills and 250,000 disconnections for operational purposes. Many of those operational disconnections are for as little as a couple of hours; certainly not as long as 48 hours. No operational cut-off in the Anglian region has taken more than 48 hours.
When a large operational job is carried out—for example, the scraping and re-lining of a pipe which is a typical large-scale job—only 30 hours work is involved. The Bill as drafted requires notification within 48 hours. It is possible that the water has been disconnected, restored and everyone has gone home before someone has to go through the bureacratic nonsense of letting a local authority know that the water has been disconnected. Apart from the cut-offs for non-domestic non-payment of charges, the water supply will be restored.
A requirement in the Bill for a water undertaker to serve 250,000 notices each year on local authorities, which would be rendered unnecessary if the water is restored within a short time, is unnecessary bureaucracy. Anglia is one of the 10 authorities. Let us assume that they all have a similar workload. One can therefore envisage approximately 2·5 million notices to local authorities simply stating that water has been cut off, possibly after the event. If we are in the business of simplifying and reducing bureaucracy and costs the amendment has some attraction.
I am concerned that notifying a local authority is not simply a matter of picking up a telephone and telling the authority that 4 Acacia Avenue is to be disconnected. If it is a requirement of the Bill that the call must be registered, the water companies must have some kind of bureaucracy to prove that the call has been made and the local authorities must register it and do something about it. I believe that the bureaucracy is quite unnecessary; I hope that the amendment will receive the support of my noble friend and the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not respond in any way to the noble Baroness's challenge to debate amendments which have already been withdrawn or not moved. However, I believe that her amendment is sensible. She is speaking of the burden on water undertakers to issue notices to local authorities. I am thinking about the burden on local authorities which must receive them. On the face of it, any restriction from unnecessary pieces of paper passing to and fro is desirable.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Blatch. Anything which reduces bureaucracy—more politely called "administration"—is worth doing. Goodness knows, there will be plenty of it when the Bill comes into operation! Any mitigation that we can introduce will be an advantage.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 49 sets out the circumstances in which a water undertaker is able to cut off supplies of water. Subsection (8) requires an undertaker to serve notice on the relevant local authority within 48 hours of cutting off a supply to an inhabited house.
Amendment No. 320ZB seeks to restrict the requirement to notify the local authority to the case of disconnections for non-payment of charges. The effect of this would be to exclude from the requirement disconnections, for example, in order to carry out essential works that could last for a considerable period. As the requirement to inform the local authority is for public health reasons it is the fact of disconnection that is of immediate relevance and not the cause.
My noble friend Lady Blatch may be worried that the clause as drafted may require the briefest of disconnections for essential works to be notified even though the supply is expected to be restored within the 48-hour period. I think she will find that in practice her fears are unfounded. I can tell her that the provision is based on the present requirement in the 1945 Water Act which has operated to the best of my knowledge without creating any such difficulties. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by this and, particularly in view of the public health implications, she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I remain a little worried. If the clause remains in the Bill as drafted I accept his suggestion that there are reasonable grounds. I am however concerned that not only is there a legal requirement to notify the local authority but also that there will also be a legal requirement on the water companies to prove a reasonable exemption from having disconnected unnecessarily.
I believe that we would have an unnecessary series of resorts to the courts and to questions of why the water company did not inform. I believe that the simplest course of action would be to accept the amendment. I do not intend to press it at this stage but I ask the Minister to give the matter some thought between now and Report stage.
Lord Hesketh: I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said and also the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the Minister will not because I was convinced by his argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 320A:
Page 56, line 50, at end insert (", and shall also serve notice on the customer service committee for the area concerned.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 320B. The amendments raise the question of the extent to which the consumer service committees should be kept informed of disconnections in their areas. I agree with the purport of the preceding amendment as debated—that we should try to cut down the amount of paper work. Nonetheless, it is an important part of the work of a customer service committee that it should be aware of what is going on as regards disconnections and of their frequency and importance in the area.
The amendments are of a probing nature and are intended to discover how the committees can be kept informed of what in our opinion should be an important part of their work. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 320A provides for each water undertaker to notify the customer service committee to which it is allocated of all disconnections of water supply. Amendment No. 320B would require customer service committees to publish annual reports listing all disconnections notified to them under the previous amendment.
Customers can naturally take up with their relevant customer service committee any complaints they may have about the exercise by a company of its powers to disconnect water supply and the committees are likely to wish to pursue this matter on behalf of customers more generally in any event. If a company was unwilling to provide information about disconnections which a committee considered relevant to its functions as set out in the Bill, then the committee could take the matter up with the director general. The director has powers under condition L of the licence to require information for the purpose of carrying out any of his functions under the Bill.
Where a committee considered it necessary to report on the issues raised by disconnections, it could do so under Clause 36 (1)(b). The director would have no reason to withhold the publication of such a report, particularly given the importance of the public being properly informed about disconnection practice, although he would have to have regard to his duty under Clause 34 to consider commercial and personal confidentiality. The director and the CSCs will no doubt wish to keep a close eye on disconnections for non-payment if for no other reason than monitoring the operation of the disconnection code.
For planned interruptions of supply the CSCs will have access to the information required to be published each year under licence condition I by undertakers in their levels of service information and service target reports. Interruptions to supplies is one of the service indicators for which targets are to be set in order to improve the quality of service and encourage increased efficiency.
However, having listened to the arguments put forward and given the importance which we attach to disconnection for non-payment being very much a matter of last resort, I am prepared to consider
1306
whether an appropriate amendment might be made, either to the Bill or to condition G of the licence, to require water undertakers to provide customer service committees with numbers of disconnections for non-payment of charges by each local authority area. For the reasons I have just indicated I do not consider it necessary that this should be extended to cover all disconnections. Nor do I consider it desirable that companies should be required to identify each household concerned given the often confidential and sensitive nature of the circumstances surrounding individual disconnections. In the light of this undertaking I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 320A.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the detailed answer which he gave in response to my amendments. It is very gratifying that the Government, both in response to this amendment and previous amendments, have emphasised the importance which they attach to the whole question of disconnections. They fully recognise the public concern on this matter. I am delighted to learn also that as regards the customer service committees, the Government will now take this away and think about ways in which they can be kept regularly informed about disconnections occurring in each local authority area on grounds of non-payment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 320B and 320C not moved.]
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Duty as respects constant supply and pressure.]:
[Amendment No. 321 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 321 AZA:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert ("or to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations under this section by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is an amendment about making the Bill when it becomes an Act work better. Clause 51 places a water undertaker under a duty to provide a constant supply of water at an adequate pressure. That is a similar duty to that contained in the present legislation—Section 39 and the third Schedule of the Water Act 1945. Any failure to comply with that duty is a criminal offence.
However, there is one crucial difference between the provisions in the Bill and the current legislation, and that is the wording of the defence which does not include frost and drought. Under the current legislation it is a sufficient defence against prosecution for the undertakers to show that they failed to comply with the constant supply and pressure duty by reason of frost and drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause or during the execution of any necessary work.
The defence of this duty in Clause 51(9) states:
"it shall be a defence for that undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence."
There is no reference to frost or drought in that wording and that could cause the water undertaker serious problems.
The defence under the Bill as drafted is less clear than the present legislation; for example, could the words "due diligence" and "reasonable steps" mean that a water undertaker would now be required to take remedial action against possible drought or frost damage by either relaying all pipework which was laid in the days when pipe-laying techniques were less advanced and which may have left them vulnerable to frost and drought or even to build greater capacity into the distribution system to compensate in the event of drought or frost? In any case, both examples would require substantial capital expenditure.
It has been reported in the press that sewage discharge consents have been amended so that the consent conditions give effect to the quality of the sewage discharged. That is being done because water authority directors will be unable to sign flotation prospectuses if they are committing criminal offences; in that case they would be in breach of discharge consent conditions. Surely the same argument applies here. If the defence to the criminal offences under both Clauses 51 and 47 is not made clear, there must be similar prospectus implications.
If the new requirement of Clause 51 (9) is to remain as drafted, then a phased introduction should be considered; otherwise, undertakers could find themselves in the following situation. Works which were perfectly adequate to satisfy the defence contained in Section 39 of the Water Act 1945 might not be sufficient to satisfy the defence contained in Clause 51(9). That does not seem reasonable. However, if the Bill as drafted means that the frost and drought exemption is no longer appropriate and should be replaced by the reasonable steps and due diligence defence, surely that defence should be introduced in stages and a form of wording should be devised so as to apply the defence to new works which water undertakers build with the new narrower defence in mind. It is not reasonable to apply a narrower defence to a vast network of existing assets without taking into account the impact of that on capital expenditure.
Water undertakers need a realistic and fair defence against events not within their control. My amendment provides for that and I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 51 sets out the requirements on water undertakers in respect of constancy and pressure of supplies. The Secretary of State is able to modify by order the requirements on an undertaker. The obligations are enforceable under Clause 20 by the Secretary of State. An undertaker which breaches its obligations is also to be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. Subsection (9) provides a defence for an undertaker to show in any proceeding for an offence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid
1308
breaching its obligations. The purpose of Amendment No. 321 AZA in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch is to broaden an undertaker's defence for a breach of its obligations under this clause. It proposes an additional defence for an undertaker to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause.
The effect of this amendment would be to provide an absolute defence for an undertaker in these circumstances. Thus there would be no recourse for those adversely affected should an undertaker, for example, in the future fail to lay pipes deep enough to be protected even in normal degrees of frost.
I recognise that the amendment seeks merely to preserve the current legislative position. However, we believe the provisions in Clause 51 strike the right balance between an undertaker's entitlement to a proper degree of protection against events outside its control and its obligations to consumers. An undertaker will have the defence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.
We cannot accept that there is any justification for an undertaker being able to get away with neglecting to take even the most basic minimal steps to ensure that it can continue to fulfil its duties to its customers. It will properly be for the courts to make any judgment about the reasonableness of steps taken to avoid a breach of the duty in the light of the particular circumstances. We believe that the changes we are proposing to current law are entirely reasonable and I therefore trust that my noble friend will also see the sweet reason contained therein.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend the Minister. I am trying to be sweet and reasonable. There is a concern. It is not my view that the water companies are looking for an absolute defence against doing nothing to prevent damage from drought or frost. Where they need considerable understanding is that it is possible to have damage to pipework for no better reason that that it was laid at too shallow a level. It could be that the water companies know that in advance. What I am trying to rule out is a requirement on the water companies to put every inadequacy of the 19th century right immediately, because that would be taking all reasonable precautions in advance of any damage, or, should there be any damage, that it can be taken—if I read my noble friend's comments aright—that as long as all other reasonable steps are taken the companies would be exempt from any kind of breach or offence.
I need to read my noble friend's comments more closely but I wonder what would be the defence of a water company if damage was caused to a pipe and the only reason was that the technology available at the time it was laid was such that it left it vulnerable to drought or frost.
The Earl of Arran: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I can assist my noble friend a little further on this point. Pipes laid under the old provisions will continue to be subject to the old conditions. The Bill's requirements will only apply to pipes laid under the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend very much for that clarification. I am not absolutely certain that the words of the Bill convey precisely that meaning but I shall read what has been said and if the wording is not correct perhaps my noble friend will bring forward a different form of words on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duties of water undertakers with respect to water quality]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZA:
Page 60, line 29, leave out ("in general").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to leave out the word "general" in Clause 52(l)(b) on the ground that the subsection already starts with the words "so far as reasonably practicable". This is a vital matter. The clause deals with the duties of water undertakers to supply water of the right quality and to maintain that quality and we feel that these two qualifications go too far. If the subsection starts by saying "so far as reasonably practicable" the companies should ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of the water and then adds the words "in general", it seems to us that it is a fairly weak provision.
Therefore, our reason for tabling this simple amendment is that we feel the subsection should be strengthened. We were minded to leave out both qualifications, but in the interests of seeking to be fair to the water undertakers we leave in one qualification and ask the Committee to agree that the other qualification should be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would mean that water undertakers would be under a duty, so far as was reasonably practicable, to provide water which did not vary in quality at any time, anywhere that it was supplied. I hope that what I have to say will assure noble Lords that the phrase "in general" is included purely on scientific and practical grounds and does not lessen the requirement to maintain the high quality of our drinking water.
This provision places water undertakers under an entirely new obligation. For the first time they will be required to ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of their supplies. Where water is already of a high quality the undertaker may be tempted, for reasons of cost, for example, to let this slip to just above the legally enforceable minimum standards. Obviously this would be wrong. This provision prevents that from happening. Standards must not be allowed to decline to the lowest acceptable levels. I am sure the Committee will agree with me on that point.
However, it is a scientific impossibility to ensure that the quality of water does not change. The very nature of water means that it is subject to seasonal variations such as heavy rainfall or drought beyond the control of the undertaker. Unless those changes showed an overall deterioration in quality over
1310
several years, or an exceptional change in a particular year, they would not be a cause for concern. It is these types of variation that the qualifying phrase "in general" is designed to cover. Water quality changes may also be brought about by operational processes such as blending, substitution of a ground water supply with a surface water derived supply, or the provision of a standby supply.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: Far be it from me to wish to engage in a scientific discussion with the noble Lord, but I should have thought that the words "so far as reasonably practicable" cover all the points he made. However, I do not wish to press the matter further. We have been given an assurance that the maintenance of quality will be a prime consideration, as it should be, and that only matters effectively outside the control of the water companies will be excepted under the terms of this clause. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 321ZAB:
Page 60, line 35, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and in doing so I speak also to Amendment No. 321ZAC. The effect of these two amendments is to impose a new duty on plcs to prevent water from becoming unwholesome in the course of supply.
Clause 52 imposes a duty upon a water undertaker at the time of supply to supply only water which is wholesome. Subsection (2) of the clause relieves the undertaker of any responsibility for the quality of water once it has left the undertaker's pipes; that is, in most cases the stopcock at the curtilage of the premises. While the undertaker's water mains may be constructed from such materials as cast iron, asbestos or plastic, the pipes belonging to the consumer are more likely to be manufactured from copper or, in the case of older properties, lead.
Many waters are unstable with respect to the materials through which they pass. With lead pipes, certain waters are potentially plumbo-solvent in that they will attack lead piping and cause the lead to be dissolved into the water supply. This most commonly occurs in older houses and in particular where water may stand overnight in long lengths of lead piping. Iron and steel water storage tanks and fittings may be subject to accelerated rates of corrosion by certain waters. As well as destroying the pipes in time, corrosion can be very troublesome in causing stains, colour and turbidity due to dissolved iron.
By carefully regulating parameters of water quality, the undertakers are in a position to control to a large degree the deterioration of the water that has left their own mains but which is passing through or being stored in the consumer's plumbing system. In particular, pH corrosion is frequently associated with acid waters of low pH. Where bicarbonate

1311
alkalinity is high, corrosion and plumbo-solvency are unlikely. High total solids may contribute to corrosion: as electrolytes they may promote galvanic corrosion. Organic matter may encourage plumbo-solvency. Under anaerobic conditions, sulphate may be reduced to hydrogen sulphide and so aggravate corrosion.
Free chlorine can in certain circumstances aggravate corrosion. Iron bacteria and sulphur bacteria can promote corrosion. We consider it desirable that the water undertakers be given the responsibility to provide water which will not, under normal circumstances, deteriorate within the consumer's pipes. The undertakers can control this by careful regulation of, among other things, pH, carbonate balance, inhibitors and de-aeration. The proposed amendment will extend the undertaker's duty of care to water within the consumer's pipes. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Before replying to the amendment, perhaps I may, on behalf of all Members of the Committee, welcome the very happy return of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. We hope that he is fully recovered from his recent accident and we are very pleased to see him.
Clause 52 clearly provides that undertakers are under a duty when supplying water to any premises to supply only water which is wholesome at the time of supply. Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the case where water becomes unwholesome after it has left the undertaker's system. Amendment No. 321ZAC would extend the duty of water undertakers to supply wholesome water to situations where the water became unwholesome after it left the undertaker's pipes because of a defect in the performance of the undertaker or his agent. Amendment No. 321ZAB would only cause doubt as to the meaning of Clause 52(2).
I fully appreciate the point behind the noble Lord's Amendment No. 321ZAC. We do not wish water to be supplied of such a quality that it will react with pipework which is normally used in properties and produce unpleasant or harmful water at the consumer's tap. At present undertakers only have a statutory duty to supply wholesome water while it is in their pipes. In addition undertakers have always owed a common law duty of care to their customers in these circumstances, but the precise extent of that duty is not at all clear when applied to the interaction of water with lead pipes, for example.
We are therefore taking the opportunity to clarify this in the Bill and particularly by subsection (3) of this clause. This subsection enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying what obligations a water undertaker has where the water could become unwholesome after it leaves his pipes. These regulations will have to be very carefully drafted. They need to draw a fair distinction between those situations where it is reasonable to require the undertaker to adjust the treatment of water supplied to the area, and those where it is really a matter for the property owner to deal with—by, for example, replacing his own pipes.
1312
I fear that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is both too general and too limited to achieve the end which we are looking for. On the one hand "any defect in the performance" is a very vague expression which would clearly need to be defined at some length in an explanatory document. On the other hand, some of the issues which we wish to cover under subsection (3) could hardly be called "defects in the performance", such as the supply of water which is perfectly satisfactory unless it is in prolonged contact with a particular type of plumbing. It is for these reasons that we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Lord for the remarks that he made to me personally. I am also grateful to him for the explanation that he gave as regards the present position under subsection (3) of this part of the Bill. I accept entirely the proposition that an attempt is to be made in the regulations to draw a fair distinction concerning responsibilities in this area between undertakers and consumers. However, I believe that the purpose of the amendment is quite frankly to place responsibility on the person best able to deal with it. And as I have said, that is the undertaker. I believe that this is a problem that is likely to grow in incidence because of the extensive use virtually acknowledged by the Minister of lead piping in old properties for taking water from the company's main into housing. If it is to be replaced by reason of maintaining or improving water quality, that will represent a fairly sizeable burden on the consumers as those of us who have had to take this action in recent months are well aware.
I believe that the point of the amendment has been reasonably argued. Even within the present context, the plcs, if they so desire, will be able to do something to help consumers by the manner in which they treat water which they know is to be stored overnight. It is therefore likely to suffer something of a change as between its condition when it arrives at the undertaker's point of delivery and its receipt in the consumer's household. Nevertheless, I believe that the assurances which the Minister has given me are sufficient for the present. I accept his argument that it will be a difficult task, in drafting regulations on this point, to hold a fair balance between the parties. I hope that the moving of this amendment will in some respects, firstly, publicise the nature of the problem and perhaps also, in striking that balance, persuade the Secretary of State to lean a little in favour of the consumer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZAC not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 321ZB is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 321ZBA.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZB:
Page 61, line 7, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where a water undertaker supplies water by means of pipes to any premises and that water is unwholesome at the time of supply the undertaker shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to a fine.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the position as regards the obligations of the water undertaker to provide wholesome water and not to provide unwholesome water. We feel that subsection (5) as drafted is a little weak. The alternative drafting, which makes it an offence to supply unwholesome water rather than to have as an obligation the supply of wholesome water—which is the significance of the existing subsection (5)—is much stronger and is in line with our general views and our concerns about the need to ensure that standards of water supply should be maintained at the highest desirable level. On those grounds, I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment substitutes for the enforcement procedure under Clause 20 an offence provision with penalties where an undertaker supplies water which is unwholesome. Water will be unwholesome whenever it fails to comply with any of the standards to be laid down in regulations made under Clause 65. The meaning of wholesomeness will therefore be significantly changed by the Bill. These standards will include all the drinking water directive standards and a number of others. They are very tight standards and many of them are concerned not with health risks but with the appearance and taste of the water. No country in Europe complies with all of these standards and all are having to take steps to improve their supplies.
Members of the Committee will already be aware that substantial programmes of improvement are under way in this country to comply fully with these standards. The programmes will have to be agreed with the Secretary of State under Clause 20 and made public. A failure to fulfil the programmes, unless for a very good reason, will lead to an enforcement order being made. This seems an eminently sensible and practical way to proceed. We believe that it would be quite unjustifiable to subject the water undertaker to criminal penalties every time one of the quality standards was breached. Some of the standards relate solely to the appearance or taste of the water and an occasional failure to comply with the colour or taste standard is not something to warrant criminal penalties. This is even less justifiable when the undertaker has programmes of improvement under way which are proceeding as fast as practicable. In some instances such as where water has to be de-nitrified, treatment processes are still at the development stage, and it would be very unfortunate if an undertaker were penalised for quite properly proceeding in a cautious manner to gain experience with the treatment process before using it on a wide scale.
The proper occasion for a criminal penalty is when water unfit for human consumption is supplied, and Clause 54 already provides just that. Removing the enforcement of this clause under the provisions of Clause 20 would have been the loss of the very significant enforcement provisions contained in the Bill. Instead of the Secretary of State being able to require the undertaker to take appropriate remedial action, which if not carried out could lead ultimately to the loss of the undertaker's appointment, he could only institute criminal proceedings leading to the
1314
imposition of a fine. This would mean a significant weakening in the enforcement regime. For these reasons I ask Members of the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, responds to that, I must say how very interested I was in the Minister's reply, especially when he talked about compliance with directives. Did he perhaps include European Commission directives in that? If so, would he like to tell the Committee what progress is being made in negotiations with the European Commission under Clause 38, as amended?
Lord Hesketh: I was certainly referring to European directives, which I am sure comes as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As regards the latest state of play, I believe that my noble friend Lord Caithness has this very week received a letter from the Commissioner confirming the arrangements which were agreed with the Government.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration that he gave to the amendment, which once again emphasises the importance attached to the supply of wholesome water, to penalties for the supply of unwholesome water and certainly to strong enforcement. However, in the light of the explanation which he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 321ZBA:
Page 61, line 8, leave out ("enforceable") and insert ("enforced").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 321ZBA.The amendment replaces the word "enforceable" with the word "enforced" in subsection (5) of Clause 52. This would require the duties of a water undertaker in relation to the quality and sufficiency of water supplies under Clause 20 to be enforceable by the Secretary of State. As subsection (5) is currently drafted, the Secretary of State has given himself the power to enforce, but no duty to do so. The Minister will doubtless argue that the Secretary of State needs to make judgments in individual situations, and that fact is not denied.
However, the amendment draws attention to the fact that without some requirement on the Secretary of State to take enforcement action, that series of duties—as with many others in the Bill—will effectively have no sanctions. The interests of consumers and of the industry rest on decisions as to enforcement made by the Secretary of State.
Amendments have already been moved, and lost, to include local authorities as enforcement agents. This amendment again shows that it still behoves the Secretary of State to explain why so much should rely on his individual decisions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will always enforce duties where they have been

1315
breached, other than in trivial cases? Can he say whether such enforcement will take place quickly? Further, will consumers have a right of redress if the Secretary of State does not take action in a situation where they believe it should have been taken? Those are just some of the questions underlying the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Under this amendment the duties of a water undertaker concerning the quality of water it supplies would be "enforced" instead of "enforceable" by the Secretary of State under Clause 20. We believe that the amendment would have no substantive effect, as in either case the Secretary of State will be bound to operate in accordance with Clause 20. The change of word here does not affect how he operates under Clause 20 as that is laid down by the clause itself. As I explained to the Committee on Monday, the amendments to Clause 20 will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to enforce Clause 52 subject to the provisions of Clause 20(2) and (5).
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for his assurance that Clause 20 as it now stands imposes a duty to enforce regulations. Accordingly, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 321ZBB:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Publication of standards of wholesomeness and performance criteria.
. The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act and from time to time thereafter, publish details of—

(a) any standard of wholesomeness currently applicable for the purposes of section 52 above;

(b) a statement of, and the reasons for, any requirements established in regulations under section 53 below for the purposes of preserving drinking water quality; and

(c) the proposed timeable within which each water undertaker is expected to achieve compliance with any prescribed standard of wholesomeness, or (to the extent that it is a different standard) any level of quality established in a current EC Directive.").

The noble Lord said: In order to orientate the new clause in its correct context I need to make reference to Clause 52 because, as Members of the Committee will be aware, that clause relates to water quality. Clause 52(1)(a) reads:
"when supplying water to any premises for domestic purposes to supply only water which is wholesome at the time of supply".
Clause 52(1)(b) talks in terms of there being:
"no deterioration in the quality of the water which is supplied from time to time from that source or combination of sources."
Further on in Clause 52 we are talking in terms of when water can be held to be unwholesome. In subsection (3)(a) it says:
"It has ceased to be wholesome after leaving the undertaker's pipes but while in a pipe which is subject to water pressure from a water main or which would be so subject but for the closing of some valve".
Clause 52(3)(b) it reads:
"it has so ceased in consequence of the failure of the undertaker, before supplying the water, to take such steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of securing the elimination or reduction to a minimum of any prescribed risk that the water would cease to be wholesome after leaving the undertaker's pipes."
I am told that an investigation into the track record of enforcement of drinking water standards in this country would show a history of relaxed interpretations, derogations from and disregard to standards, in particular to the document, 80/778/EEC. I should remind the Committee and the Minister who seems a little puzzled at the easy way in which I quoted that reference, that in December 1987, after taking legal advice, the Government, faced with action by the European Commission, were forced to accept a more stringent interpretation of the EC directive for admissible concentrations of substances in drinking water. In 1986 the Department of the Environment told water authorities to ignore EC standards for pesticides in drinking water arguing that the limits should be based upon toxicological evidence and not on limits of detection.
In another place the above view was still maintained. The Minister for Water and Planning stated that it was the intention to get some parameters changed. He said that standards for other substances were too stringent and that they were not based on a proper toxicological analysis. He suggested that the standards set should be more sensible; in other words, less stringent. I submit that there is cause for concern at the Government's acceptability of contamination of drinking water supplies, and at the attitude of taking action only in circumstances where a risk to health has been conclusively proved.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a standard of wholesomeness is published, together with details of the measures which are being adopted by each water undertaker to secure compliance. If one looks at the amendment, it will be seen that that is precisely what we are asking the Committee to approve: that there be written on the face of the Bill that, any standard of wholesomeness, currently applicable for the purpose of Clause 52, shall be published; and that there shall be a statement of, together with the reasons for, any requirements established in regulations under Clause 53 for the purposes of preserving drinking water quality.
More important, in the context of previous happenings in this Chamber, it is proposed in the amendment that there should be a timetable within which each water undertaker is expected to achieve compliance with any prescribed standard of wholesomeness; or, to the extent that it is a different standard, that it should achieve compliance with any level of quality established in a current EC directive.
I hope that the Minister will understand the importance that we on these Benches attach not only to the quality of drinking water but also to the publication to the public of what are held to be satisfactory standards and as to what in actual fact has happened to those standards over a period. The public is entitled to know the quality of the water that it drinks. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this new clause would be that the Secretary of State would have to publish standards of wholesomeness, explanation of the regulations made under Clause 53 and the time by which each undertaker will have to achieve compliance with the standards.
The concept of wholesomeness is not defined in current legislation. This is remedied in the Bill. Water will be defined as wholesome if it meets the requirements of regulations made under Clause 65. These regulations will fully incorporate the quality standards laid down in the EC drinking water directive and will set 12 further national standards where none or less stringent ones are set in the directive itself. Water will be unwholesome whenever a sample infringes a standard set in the regulations.
A consultation paper on the proposed contents of the regulations was published in February. The regulations are now being drafted and will be laid before Parliament as soon as the Bill gains Royal Assent. The water industry and local authority associations have been closely consulted throughout their preparation and a copy of the proposals has also been sent to the EC Commission. Once the regulations have been made, copies will be available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. We also intend to publish a guidance document explaining the regulations. Any amendments to the regulations that may be required, because of, for example, changes to the standards set in the EC directive will be made by means of the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
Where water undertakers are unable to meet any of the standards set in the regulations, they will have to agree programmes of improvement with the department. They will also have to publish in their annual report on drinking water quality progress towards achieving compliance and to make publicly available on a zone by zone basis details of the programmes agreed with the department. Copies of the undertakings given in relation to these programmes under Clause 20(5)(b), as now amended, must be included in the public register to be established by the director general.
I am therefore happy to state that the proposals put forward in the noble Lord's new clause are already catered for in the Bill, or in steps which we propose to take once the Bill has been enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also said that the Minister will understand the importance that noble Lords on the Benches opposite attach to this matter. I think I can go no further than saying that I suspect the Committee will be interested to know that Commissioner Ripa has written to my noble friend Lord Caithness confirming that discussions on the Bill have come to a satisfactory conclusion. In his letter, he said that the government amendments made to Clause 20, and the statement I made in introducing the amendments, satisfied him that the United Kingdom Government intend to rectify any deficiency in water supplies as quickly as possible, taking certain practicalities into account. With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend responds, we listened with great attention to the noble Lord reading the letter from the European Environment Commissioner. No doubt the letter will be, or has been, placed in the Library. I think it will have to be, because a letter of this kind which is read out in Committee, and is a communication from the European Commission, ought to be made available to noble Lords who are concerned with the progress of this Bill. I assume that it ought to be placed in the House of Commons Library as well.
Just so that I understand clearly what it is that the noble Lord has told us, we understand that the amendments to Clause 20 which deal with enforcement have gained the approval of the European Commission. But the amendments which were made to Clause 38 on Monday, in particular Amendment No. 288B, went further than that. That amendment referred to agreement on a timetable for a date or dates, not in regard to progress towards compliance with the European standard but the date by which the compliance should be completed. Is the Minister telling us that the Commission has now agreed, in terms which are compatible with Amendment No. 288B, with proposals that have been made by Her Majesty's Government for completion of compliance with European standards?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure whether it is entirely appropriate that we should return to Clause 38, but I shall try to answer the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised. The subject of Monday's debate is very pertinent to the amendments which we are debating now, and I think it will be helpful if I try to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
First, I should like to remove the confusion produced by some of the statements the noble Lord made at the time. He proposed that Parliament should lay down a timetable for compliance with the EC drinking water directive standards. But to lay down such a timetable in legislation would be contrary to the directive, which sets a much earlier date, and the legal requirement must be to comply now. That is what the Bill does through Clause 52—to supply water meeting those standards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister went backwards by referring to Clause 20, and to go back only as far as Clause 38 is surely a much lesser offence in procedural terms. It is true that the reasoned opinion issued in April gave as a deadline for compliance two months from the date of issue of the reasoned opinion. The Government made it clear at that time, and ought to repeat it, that there was no possibility whatsoever of meeting the compliance requirements of the reasoned opinion within two months of the issue of the reasoned opinion.
I am surprised that the Minister should repeat the bland statement that that is the legal position, when the Secretary of State has already made it clear that the Government did not accept the deadline which had already been set. The fact that a deadline had been set, which the Government have already

1319
repudiated, does not mean therefore that it is improper to seek to impose a reasonable deadline, and the Bill as amended now provides for a more reasonable deadline. The Minister would be well advised not to fall into the trap which the Friends of the Earth have fallen into, of thinking that any reasonable deadline is improper or illegal.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be very surprised to find me falling into the same trap as the Friends of the Earth. Perhaps I may rectify what I did not answer the previous time I rose to the Dispatch Box and say that a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been more than fair to the Committee and has in fact been generous. I am trying to find a word which will make the Minister smile instead of grimace. He has given the Committee as much information as he can, all of which goes a long way along the lines of the amendment that we have moved. It is quite clear that the Minister and his colleagues have become more sensitive in these matters than we had hitherto thought they were; hence the purpose of the amendments.
I should like to remind the Minister of what the Minister for Water and Planning said in another place on this very issue. He said that standards for other substances were too stringent and were not based upon a proper toxocological analysis. He also said the Government suggest that should be more sensible—in other words, less stringent. Those are the Minister's words and we have been given no detail.
I appreciate, as the Minister said, that there have been consultations with local authorities and other bodies and that the Commission has been involved in discussions. That is what we hoped was happening. But until we rise at the Box on these amendments and ask pointed questions, we are not privy to what the Minister said. That is why my noble friend, with his experience in this Committee and on this Bill, is somewhat sensitive about accepting, not at face value but at first hearing, what the Minister tells us is the position.
However, the Minister has given us an assurance that the correspondence, on which he rested so heavily as a reason for not accepting this amendment, will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We shall study the correspondence with care and it may be that we shall want to come back at a later date. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In the next group of four amendments the first two have been marshalled in the wrong order, and so I must call Amendment No. 321ZBD first.
Clause 53 [Regulations for preserving water quality]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBD:
Page 61, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment returns to a familiar issue which has arisen on a number of occasions in the Bill; that is, whether the Secretary of State "may" by regulations take some action or whether he "shall". In this case Clause 53 refers to the enforcement of the steps that have been prescribed for securing compliance with Clause 52 relating to duties on water undertakers with respect to water quality.
Clause 53(1) spells out a number of steps which may be prescribed to ensure that the water is wholesome. It was not until Monday when amendments were moved in Committee that we had an adequate definition of the word "wholesome". Unless the Secretary of State makes those regulations to secure compliance with Clause 52, we should not have monitoring or recording of water quality, the establishment of proper quality standards for water sources, records being kept of the localities supplied or the compliance with prescribed requirements on analysis of water. None of those would be brought into effect unless the Secretary of State made regulations.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State proposes to make those regulations. Under those circumstances, is there any conceivable reason why the Bill should not say that he "shall" rather than he "may" make the regulations? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment would be to turn the power to make regulations for preserving water quality into a duty. For all practical purposes there is no difference between "may" and "shall" as it is hardly conceivable that the Secretary of State would not make such regulations. For instance, they are required in order to implement certain parts of the EC drinking water directive.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows, it is the standard practice on this Bill, and in legislation generally, for the ability of the Secretary of State to make regultions to be in the terms of a power. There is no reason for departing from that in this case.
I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will draw my attention to the changes in Clause 20. The amendments to Clause 20 concerning "may" and "shall", which we debated on Monday, are concerned with the making of enforcement orders, which is a different matter from making regulations. That is why I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This sounds like the last-ditch stand of the "may" brigade; the power as opposed to duty brigade. The distinction between enforcement orders and regulations is a distinction without a difference. There is no better reason for having "may" when, as the Minister says, it is hardly conceivable that the Secretary of State will not make the regulations. It is clear that the European Commission directive requires him to make the regulations. On this occasion the Minister might go back and say to his advisers, and to the department,

1321
that where regulations are required by the European Commission, a duty rather than a power is appropriate. This a long-running skirmish. I suppose that we shall not gain anything by dividing the Committee on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBC:
Page 61, line 9, leave out from ("State") to end of line 13 and insert ("shall by regulations require the Director to establish and maintain a comprehensive water quality monitoring service, and such regulations shall enable the Director—").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is of considerable significance when we look at the ability of Clause 53 to secure compliance with the water quality requirements under Clause 52. The clause as drafted provides that the Secretary of State makes the regulations and that the obligations on the water authority are under the Secretary of State's regulations, and therefore he is responsible for enforcement. That is a profound misunderstanding of what should be the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services.
As it stands, the Secretary of State makes regulations for water quality. He is also responsible for the appointment of technical assessors, and he has the sole responsibility for taking enforcement action against undertakers. That is not a matter for Whitehall or even for Marsham Street. Compliance is required to be carried out locally and operated on the ground because water is supplied all over the country and breaches of wholesomeness standards will happen all over the country. Those powers should be the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services who has a staff, or ought to have a staff, available throughout the country to secure compliance, rather than be the responsibility of central government.
There should be a water quality monitoring service controlled by the Director General of Water Services rather than it be restricted to the Secretary of State. There is no difficulty about retaining the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility. Under Clause 20 he still has discretionary powers, but it is more appropriate to separate responsibility for enforcing the regulations between the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services.
To take up a theme which has been debated at length in Committee, the Secretary of State has the political responsibility in the sense that he is responsible to Parliament for his actions, but the Director General of Water Services has the regulatory responsibility in that he has to achieve a balance between the interests of the water undertakings and the customers and the requirements laid upon him by the Secretary of State. The way in which the clause is drafted is an invitation to centralised bureacracy rather than to the effective enforcement of the powers necessary to achieve compliance with water quality standards. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of the amendment would be to transfer responsibility for monitoring the quality of water supplied by a water undertaker from the undertaker to the Director General of Water Services.
There are two strands to the proposition in the amendment; first, that the director general should be responsible for monitoring drinking water quality. There is also a more general argument that someone independent of the water undertakers should do this monitoring.
On the first point, responsibility for checking on and enforcing the undertakers' duties concerning drinking water quality will rest with the Secretary of State, not the director general. The Secretary of State will make regulations laying down quality standards and associated matters such as frequency and location of monitoring, minimum treatment requirements and publication of information. He will be responsible under Clause 20 for deciding whether the compliance programmes put forward by undertakers are acceptable, checking that they are being carried out, and making provisional or final orders where necessary. It is right for the Secretary of State to have those responsiblities, because drinking water quality is a public health matter and because the Government are responsible for ensuring that the EC drinking water directive is properly implemented.
The director general is concerned with the charges which an undertaker may make and associated matters. To give him the responsibility proposed in the amendment would substantially affect and enlarge the nature of his work in a way which would create considerable overlap and confusion with the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
On the wider issue of independent monitoring I would draw attention to the substantial proposals for independent monitoring already set out in the Bill which will be supplemented with regulations. Under Clause 60 the Secretary of State may appoint technical assessors to carry out investigations to ensure that there is compliance with the drinking water regulations. It is the Government's intention to establish a drinking water quality inspectorate within the Department of the Environment to carry out this function. The inspectors will have access to all the water undertaker's records and will be able to assess whether their sampling and analysis is in accordance with the strict requirements of the regulations. They will be checking on all the matters covered by regulations under this clause and Clause 52, as well as compliance with the quality standards set under Clause 65 regulations and progress with compliance programmes covered by undertakings given by Clause 20(5)(b).
The inspectors will be able to take their own samples as a further check. In addition to the inspectorate, local authorities will also have a role to play in checking water quality. They will be entitled to receive information on water quality from the undertaker, to take their own samples and to raise unsatisfactory matters first with the undertaker and then with the Secretary of State.

1323
Water undertakers may have samples taken and analysed by independent laboratories. These laboratories will have to comply with the analytical methods and practices specified in regulations and will be subject to inspection by the drinking water quality inspectorate. They will be the subject of independent analytical quality control which will provide a further safeguard. We have a different approach from that recommended by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I can assure Members of the Committee that we believe that it will be extremely effective.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear that there are points of agreement and points of difference on the matter. The points of agreement are where we are all concerned that there should be a water quality control monitoring service. The Minister describes it as being the drinking water quality inspectorate within the Department of the Environment. We describe it as being a monitoring service operated by the Director General of Water Services.
I must say that I find the Minister's argument curious and out of line with much of current government thinking about the location of responsibility in the executive branch. In department after department, urged on by outside advisers, the Government, under the lead of the Prime Minister, are taking responsibilities away from mainline departments and giving them to agencies. These are being made trading units or executive agencies with their own targets and responsibilities. The claim is that they will be more efficient, more responsive to market forces, more responsive to the consumers of the services concerned and less dragged down by centralised bureaucracy.
Here we have an opportunity to set up a monitoring service, a quality inspectorate which could be operated by a newly appointed Director General of Water Services whose responsibilities are still fully to be defined in the Bill, whose staff have not yet been appointed and indeed whose identity has only become known within the last month. Here we have an opportunity for the delegation of an activity which needs to take place around the country wherever there is any threat to drinking water quality.
Yet the Government insist that matters should be kept within the department in Marsham Street. I find that extraordinary. It is an extraordinary departure from current Conservative thinking, and an extraordinary departure from what seems to us to be the rational distribution of responsibility for carrying out the role of regulation in a newly privatised industry.
The Secretary of State has responsibility for preparing the regulations. If he did not have that responsibility he would not be accountable to Parliament. So far we are in agreement. But enforcement surely ought to be the responsibility of the regulatory agency set up under the Bill.
I did not hear anything in the Minister's answer that gives me an opportunity to ask him questions in the hope that he will concede that we have a
1324
significant case. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that he will interrupt me; I do not think that I am wrong. I believe that we are in deep disagreement about the matter. What has happened here is that the traditional Civil Service mentality has overcome the interests both of Thatcherite philosophy and on this occasion also of common sense. Therefore I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 321ZBC) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Longford. E.

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Annan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ardwick, L.

Molloy, L.

Aylestone, L.

Monson, L.

Birk, B.

Mountevans, L.

Blyth, L.

Mulley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Northfield, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rugby, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Ennals, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shannon, E.

Ezra, L.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gladwyn. L.

Thurlow, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thurso, V.

Grantchester, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby. L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Warnock, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colwyn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Bauer, L.

Croft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gainford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gisborough, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

1325

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Pender, L.

Havers, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henley, L.

Pym, L.

Hesketh, L.

Radnor, E.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rochdale, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rodney, L.

Liverpool, E.

Romney, E.

Long, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marley, L.

Strange, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Windlesham, L.

Norrie, L.

Wise, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBE:
Page 61, line 34, at end insert—

("(f) to issue, with any demand to consumers in respect of water charges, a statement of the water quality achieved in the area concerned, including details of any failure to meet standards prescribed for the purposes of section 52 above.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 321ZBE is such an obvious little amendment that I am surprised the Government have not thought of it themselves. It is in line with much of the thinking which runs through the Bill. It certainly is not in any way controversial or difficult. However, it is in accordance with the best practice of private companies in a very large number of areas. One can think, for example, of the major supermarket chains which, perhaps through encouragement by legislation but partly off their own bat, have made considerable strides in the improvement of descriptive packaging at the point of sale. The labelling on products describes what the products are and their composition.
We can also look at the requirements which exist regarding the description of medicines, including ethical pharmaceuticals, at the point of sale. Customers are entitled in this case to be told what it is they are buying. Why should that not apply to water? In this amendment we propose that when the water undertakings send out demands to consumers in respect of water charges—in other words their water bill—they should set out a statement of water quality in the area concerned, including details of any failure to meet the standards set out in Clause 52.
We have used the words "in the area concerned" deliberately. To use the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we are not seeking that the demand to No. 4 Acacia Avenue should comment individually on the quality of water at No. 4 Acacia Avenue. That would be an intolerable burden. However, in our view to set out the quality of water for the area as a whole would be in line with good practice, both in the public sector and in the private sector, and would be a modest burden on the water undertakings. It would also be an example of openness between suppliers and their customers. I think that would be much appreciated by those who are at the moment very much concerned about water quality. I hope that on that basis the Government will feel able to accept this modest little amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Under this amendment, the Secretary of State would be empowered to make regulations requiring water undertakers to include with customers' water bills a statement on water quality in the area, including details of any failures to meet the quality standards set by regulations under Clause 65. However, there is a slight difference between the way water flows through one's tap on a universal basis, and purchasing a product which is packaged or in a bottle on an individual basis.
On Monday we debated the availability of information on drinking water quality. I explained how full details of all analytical data for an area, taken in accordance with the regulations, will be freely available to customers. This will show any results which breach the standards.
Thus any customer who wishes to have specific information about his water quality will only have to ask the water undertaker for it. He will be able to inspect all the data and take copies of it, as often as he may desire. We believe this is a very efficient and open way of providing information to those who want it. We consider it is also an appropriate and equally good way as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is why we do not support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that is the case, can the Minister suggest why it is that gas bills—that is the nearest analogy one can think of, if the Minister rejects the analogy of food and clothing—set out the quality of the product in that they specify the calorific value of the gas supplied? Is there any reason why what is done successfully for gas, so far as we know, should not also be done for water?
Lord Hesketh: There is a slight difference between water and gas. I say that as a consumer myself. It is easier to see whether one is getting what one wishes in terms of a calorific value than as regards the rather more detailed provisions for water. The provisions for water are of a different nature to something which can be assessed against the cost of a heating bill. We believe that the system of allowing information on water quality to be freely available from undertakers, and for it to be consulted as often as consumers wish, is as good as printing a once-a-year result on the bill that is to be sent out

1327
to the consumer. I forgot to mention one thing. The calorific value constitutes one item on a gas bill. However, there would be 66 items on a water bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not understand why there should be 66 items on a water bill.
Lord Hesketh: There are 66 standards for water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information could be provided by exception. It is only necessary for the water undertaker to indicate those elements which are no doubt very few, in which the water is short of the 66 standards. I do not find that argument convincing. I do not think it is good enough to require consumers to be active consumers. It is almost like saying that the Government will not put a health warning on cigarettes but will make available in Marsham Street and in local offices of the Department of the Environment, or in Elizabeth House and the local offices of the Department of Education, or in Alexander Fleming House and local offices of the Department of Health, information on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The time to do this is at the point of sale.
I am astonished that the Government should reject this opportunity to reassure those water customers who are receiving water of good quality in respect of which there are no exceptions to be reported by obliging water authorities to notify them when there are exceptions and water falls short of the required quality. However, I do not think that it is a matter on which I should seek the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 321ZC:
Page 61, line 34, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall not prescribe that any monitoring of the quality of water which a water undertaker supplies to premises for domestic purposes may be discounted for the purposes of section 52 above.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is no differentiation between different types of sample when it comes to testing for water quality. If an offence occurs in relation to the water consent conditions and those conditions are broken, the amendment would allow any water samples to be used in a prosecution against the private water company.
The Secretary of State has indicated that only those samples which are taken in order to show compliance with standards can be used. Therefore, a sample which was taken for a different purpose, for example for routine monitoring, which showed that those consent conditions had been broken could not be used in a prosecution. I suggest that that is flying in the face of common sense. If an offence has occurred any evidence should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would prevent any regulations made concerning a water undertaker's compliance with its duty to supply wholesome water
1328
from stating that certain monitoring may be discounted. The regulations will specify what monitoring must be carried out by a water undertaker. They will not specify that any of that monitoring may be discounted.
Operational monitoring will of course take place at the treatment works to ensure that treatment processes are operating correctly; but Section 52 concerns the quality of water as it is delivered to the customer. After water leaves a treatment works, it may be blended, or stored in a service reservoir and undergo significant changes in quality. What matters is the quality of water received by the consumer, and I can assure the Committee that if a sample is taken at a consumer's tap, for whatever reasons, and does not comply with a standard, the water in that sample will be legally unwholesome.
With that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, as he appears to have accepted the point that any breach of consents should be punished. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 321ZD:
Page 62, line 26, after ("(a)") insert "without prejudice to paragraph (cc) below").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 321ZD and the subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 321ZE, concern information. Amendment No. 321ZD is self-explanatory. It requires the publication of data obtained during monitoring carried out under Clause 53( 1 )(b). While there is a limited power under Clause 53( 3 ) to make regulations for publicity purposes, it is not clear how those regulations would operate. There is provision for an annual summary in the draft regulations and for records in a supply zone to be made publicly available. That is restricted to data about samples taken to monitor compliance with standards. The amendment would require monitoring data from all samples to be made available no matter what the reason for taking those samples. I suggest that as the amendment relates to information about sampling which has already taken place there is no reason for the information not to be made available.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State, when making regulations concerning the publication and provision of information by a water undertaker, to require the water undertaker to publish information on water quality data obtained while monitoring domestic water supplies.
I can give an assurance that the regulations now being prepared on this subject will specify information on water quality data which must be published and further information which must be available, and provided free of charge, to customers. I described this information in my response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Monday when we debated the proposal for a local register of drinking water quality.

1329
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the noble Lord said, I see that the only course of action on this occasion is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZE not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZF:
Page 63, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of particular importance because Clause 54(4) states that:
"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions".
This is an issue which has already excited a good deal of public concern because it means that any individual consumer is unable to bring action against a water undertaker for failure to comply with the duties set out in this clause. The purpose of the amendment is simply to eliminate subsection (4) so as to leave it open for prosecutions to be brought by anyone who has suffered as a result of water being supplied which is unfit for human consumption.
The amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: On behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB which are grouped with the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
We share the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has expressed about Clause 54(4) in that, while creating a new offence of supplying water which is unfit for human consumption, it places the onus of prosecution for offences entirely with either the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That seems to us to be so restrictive as to nullify the real advantages which may flow from a provision of the kind which Clause 54 introduces.
We are perhaps more specific than the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in the two amendments in that rather than leaving out the subsection in its entirety, we have suggested a number of additions which would, in our opinion, in addition to the powers which have been given to the Secretary of State and Director of Public Prosecutions, allow, for example, the local authority in the area concerned to bring a prosecution and allow the customer service committees being established under the Bill or any consumer to ask any of the persons referred to in the subsection to request that proceedings be instituted.
The phrase "unfit for human consumption" has a certain ring about it for those of us who are intimate
1330
with the food trade. We are well aware of the fairly stringent rules that apply to food retailers as regards the quality of food that they offer for sale in their shops. We also know of the excellent protection that is afforded to the public at large by the environmental health officers of local authorities in ensuring that compliance with the standards necessary for the maintenance of a safe food trade are of a high order, evenly enforced and always backed, in the case of prosecution, by substantial evidence and the resources that the local authority is able to deploy in cases of that kind.
It seems to us that water being retailed which is unfit for human consumption is in no substantial degree different from food being retailed which is unfit for human consumption. In these two amendments, we therefore seek to extend the power of prosecution to local authorities and to give the added powers that we have mentioned to members of the public and to the customer services committees that have been established under the Bill. It is for those reasons that the amendments have been put down. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 321ZF would be to allow any person or body to institute proceedings where a water undertaker supplies water unfit for human consumption. Amendment No. 321 ZFB would allow a local authority to institute proceedings as well as the Secretary of State and the DPP. Amendment No. 321ZFA would permit any consumer or customers services committee to request the Secretary of State, the DPP or a local authority to institute proceedings under Clause 54.
Clause 54 contains a new prosecution power. It has been generally welcomed as filling a gap which became apparent after the unfortunate incident at Camelford last year. No water that is unfit for human consumption should ever be delivered for drinking purposes. Hence the penalties for doing so may be substantial. The quality standards set in the drinking water regulations would probably have to be breached by a long way before water could be described as such as most of the standards are set well below any perceived health or other effects.
The clause as it stands restricts the power to prosecute to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have not extended the prosecution power to customers because they already have perfectly adequate means of obtaining redress against a water undertaker. If they suffer damage or injury either to themselves or their property and that can be traced to the poor quality of the water supply, they can sue for damages or loss under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There is strict liability under that Act. They do not have to prove that the water undertaker was negligent, only that it provided substandard water which injured them or damaged their property. This seems to me to be a much more effective and direct route than a prosecution under this clause.
Here I think it is important to note that we propose that the prosecution power should extend to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He represents the

1331
public interest and enables the public to complain to someone other than the Secretary of State; and of course it is open for anyone to request the prosecuting body to institute proceedings against an undertaker.
As for local authorities, they already have an important role in safeguarding the quality of drinking water in their areas. Under the Bill, they will have a duty to monitor that quality and to notify the water undertaker if the water is unwholesome. Where they are not satisfied with the response, they have a duty to notify the Secretary of State. They will receive much more information about water quality and must be involved if there is any pollution incident. However, we have not given them the power to prosecute because that power should rest with the public authority which is charged with enforcing the quality standards. For public supplies, the Secretary of State—not the local authority—is the enforcing body. That prosecution power is one of the weapons that he can use to carry out that responsibility.
The enforcement duty in Clause 20 is a very effective means of ensuring that wholesome water is supplied as quickly as possible. Provided the undertaker is fulfilling the programme and the water is not a significant health risk in the meantime, there would be little point in prosecuting under Clause 54. However, if a local authority were empowered to prosecute, it might choose to do so in such circumstances. Such action would give contradictory messages to the undertaker and might lead it to shut down the supply to avoid the risk of prosecution while the improvement work was carried out. That is something that we would not wish to encourage.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to what he perceived to be a parallel with food. But, with regard to the parallel that has been drawn with local authorities' power to prosecute where food is unfit for human consumption, there are important distinctions from water as there is no equivalent of the proposed drinking water quality inspectorate on the food side; nor are there the very comprehensive enforcement duties available under Clause 20. It is for those reasons that I urge noble Lords to reject these amendments.
Lord Gallacher: I found the Minister's answer somewhat disappointing. It seems to me that, having included a provision that will create an offence for supplying water that is unfit for human consumption, he then went on to say that the standards for designating water as unfit for human consumption will be set so low that little use is likely to be made of the provision in any case. If that is protection for consumers, it seems to me at least to be of a most doubtful kind.
It is a fact that the clause specifically excludes water which is just unwholesome; the water must be of a very low standard. That is a much lower level of protection than consumers of food in this country are accustomed to receive and, in my opinion, entitled to expect. The alternative route mentioned by the Minister—namely, the Consumer Protection
1332
Act 1987—seems to me merely to complicate the issue. It may be a means for the consumer to use, but in my opinion it clouds the issue, particularly when local authority environmental health officers may be asked for advice and may be in the position of having to tell consumers that their only recourse is to make an approach to the Secretary of State.
I doubt whether the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is capable of being used in the way that the Minister mentioned. If it is so capable, it will inevitably bring the local authority into the picture. So, on the one hand, on the basis of the Minister's present attitude, there is exclusion of local authorities under Clause 54, and, on the other hand, his recommendation that they should be included by means of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. For me, that is a confusing situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has his amendment before mine, I shall wait to see what he decides to do before deciding what I shall do with regard to the two amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Ross of Newport: It seems extraordinary to me that the Government are not prepared to allow local authorities to enter into proceedings where there has been pollution—possibly deliberate—of water which could have been avoided. It is a bureaucratic way of going about things to say that they must report the matter to the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that that is the only way to proceed. I see this as another way of saying to local authorities, "We don't want you any more". That seems to be the complete analysis of what is going on in all government thinking at the present time. The Government simply do not think that local authorities should play any role in the matter, but local authorities are the natural people to institute proceedings. They have the enforcement officers. They do the testing of water in most cases at the present time.
We now know that the National Rivers Authority may or may not employ the expertise of local authorities. We on this side think that that is absolutely daft and that it jolly well should do so because it is already set up. There will be enormous waste and duplication. We also wonder what is the role of the pollution inspectorate nowadays. I seems to me that that is muddied ground, but, quite frankly, why it is not possible to allow local authorities to institute proceedings is just beyond me. It seems absolutely daft.
Viscount Thurso: It seems to me that a very curious situation will arise when people come to inspect public houses and hotels because the local authority inspectors will test the whisky and someone else will test the water. It seems curious that the same inspector cannot test both articles that go into the same glass.
Lord Hesketh: He can.
Viscount Thurso: But he will not be able to prosecute—is that right?
Lord Hesketh: As I said earlier the local authorities have an important role to play in this matter. Certainly they could test the water at the same time as the whisky. If the water were unfit they would draw it to the Secretary of State's attention.
Viscount Thurso: But what guarantee is there that the Secretary of State will prosecute? None whatever.
Lord Hesketh: The object of the exercise is that they either comply or do not comply.
Lord Ezra: Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord set a very good standard of sympathy which he extended toward us in regard to a number of important amendments which had been moved. Unfortunately his ration of sympathy seems to have run out on this occasion. I think that we must take the matter a little further. I should have liked very much to have been able to withdraw this amendment but I do not think that I can do so.
The fact is that the track record of the enforcement of drinking water standards in this country so far has not been particularly good. There have been a number of relaxations introduced and we must take advantage of this fundamental legislation to tighten up the procedures. One way of tightening them up is not to restrict under this clause the possibilities of prosecution to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There seems to be absolutely no reason why local authorities which have a public health responsibility which they have discharged over the years and which have all the testing facilities should not be able to bring an action under this clause. It would come before the courts like any other action and if it were justified then fines would be imposed; if not, the case would drop.
I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not right that some reference here should be made to the consumer indicating the means whereby, if not by direct action then indirectly, he could instigate or stimulate prosecution under this vital clause. Therefore in the light of the remarks that have been made on the subject and the vital nature of this clause, I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take away what we have said, think about it a little more and come back at a later stage.
I understand that the noble Lord is not prepared to do that. In that case I very much regret that I must press the amendment.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 321ZF) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ennals, L.

1334

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurso, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Warnock, B.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mancroft, L.

Arran, E.

Margadale, L.

Auckland, L.

Marley, L.

Balfour, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bauer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pym, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Radnor, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Croft, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rees, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Grantchester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Teynham, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trafford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Windlesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 321ZFBA:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for consumers for water unfit for human consumption.
.—( 1 ) A water undertaker shall be liable to pay compensation to any consumer who has suffered damage, injury or other loss as a consequence of the supply of water which is unfit for human consumption as referred to in section 54 above.
(2) The liability under subsection (1) above shall apply in respect of any such damage, injury or loss suffered as a consequence of water supplied before the passing of this Act, where the supply was undertaken by an authority exercising functions transferred by this Act to the undertaker concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the position of consumers who are entitled to compensation where they have suffered as a result of being supplied with water which is unfit for human consumption. Subsection (2) is particularly important because it requires that the new water undertakers shall inherit responsibilities for damages that may have occurred before privatisation.
Perhaps the most telling illustration of the need for this amendment is to remind Members of the Committee of the incident last year which involved Camelford and the surrounding area. On 6th July 1988 a consignment of aluminium sulphate—which is used for water treatment—was delivered to the wrong tank and so was released into the water supply. There followed immediate and serious effects on the population of the area; sickness, diarrhoea and other symptoms. The South West Water Authority eventually admitted liability and I understand that compensation has been paid in some cases.
However, the matter is by no means settled. There is anxiety about medium and long-term effects. A Department of Health team is currently working in the area. It has not yet completed its investigations. A report was due in March and has not yet appeared. Meanwhile symptoms displayed by some residents are associated with the kind of poisoning which results from this chemical: short-term memory loss, psychological disturbance and extreme muscle fatigue. GPs in the area are still monitoring their patients. It could therefore be some time before the full picture of the damage in that area is clear.
I understand that some small businesses have also suffered as a result of the illnesses of their owners. The tourist trade, which is important, is said to be affected. There were many visitors at the time; it was at the height of the holiday season. Some of those may yet prove to have been affected by the chemicals in the water which they drank at the time. If the link is established they too would have a claim.
It must therefore be right that the existing liability that has been admitted by the water authority should be carried forward in the Camelford case. It should survive the process of privatisation. I have chosen Camelford because it is known to Members of the Committee. However, there are other cases up and down the country that are awaiting a satisfactory outcome. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. I was in the Camelford area
1336
last August, almost immediately after this horrific happening, and know how much the population suffered—both tourists and the people who live there all the time. Camelford is an example. We wish to establish a principle. It was an inadvertent disaster, but such a catastrophe could happen again. We wish to establish that the principle of compensation for those who suffer—the need may not be immediate; it may come later—should be provided. With privatisation, we wish to be quite sure that the necessary commitment will be carried on into the future.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this new clause is to make water undertakers liable to pay compensation to consumers who have suffered damage or loss as a result of being supplied with water unfit for human consumption. The second part of the new clause would make successor bodies liable where the loss was caused by water supplied by their predecessors.
I trust that the occasions when anyone receives water unfit for human consumption from a public water supply will be extremely rare and preferably non-existent. However, in such an event it is clearly right that people should be able to claim compensation for loss or damage just as they can when any other product is provided.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary as customers already have perfectly adequate means of obtaining redress from a water undertaker. If they suffer any damage or injury either to themselves or their property and this can be traced to the poor quality of the water supply, they can sue for damages or loss under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There is strict liability under that Act. They do not have to prove that the company providing the product was negligent, only that the company provided a sub-standard product which injured them or damaged their property.
In future the courts are likely to consider water to be sub-standard if it does not meet the wholesomeness standards to be set out in the drinking water quality regulations. This is far wider than the phrase "unfit for human consumption" and will therefore give people more wide-ranging scope for claiming compensation.
In addition they can always claim under common law for loss caused by negligence on the part of the undertaker. If the undertaker has admitted negligence, it is simply a question of agreeing a figure. In the case of the Camelford incident last year—to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady David, drew our attention in proposing and supporting the amendment—I understand that the South West Water Authority has settled several hundred claims satisfactorily to a total value of about £75,000, without recourse to the courts.
I should like to make one further point on this part of the amendment. If the noble Baroness wishes to ensure a quick, certain means of obtaining compensation, then I do not think that the amendment will provide that as it would be necessary to obtain a court judgment on whether the water was unfit.

1337
As the phrase "unfit for human consumption" will have to be interpreted by the courts, no claims could be made until that point was settled first, which might be quite time-consuming. And as I have already said, the strict liability provisions in the Consumer Protection Act and the common law of negligence provide, we believe, simpler and wider methods of obtaining redress.
When the noble Baroness moved the amendment she said that she felt that subsection (2) was the more important of the two sections. We believe that the provision is unnecessary because the Bill provides that on the transfer date schemes made under Schedule 2 of the Bill will come into force. Those schemes will transfer to the successor companies the property, rights, and, in this case most importantly, liabilities of their predecessor water authorities in respect of their water supply and sewerage functions. The schemes will also provide that legal proceedings commenced against the water authority may be continued against the successor company. The transfer of the water supply and sewerage functions of the water authorities to these successor companies will in no way affect the ability of people to seek redress under the law in the normal way for any damage or injury suffered as a result of the action of the water authorities.
I hope that with those two explanations the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend replies—she will of course deal with the amendment as she sees fit—is the Minister telling the Committee not only that there is no need for this provision but that if it were written on the face of the Bill it would be detrimental to the interests of water consumers? Is he saying that to give effect to this new clause would cause delay and would be vexatious?
Is he also telling us that there are already adequate means for the aggrieved person to sue for loss? Does that mean that every individual who considers that he has suffered a hurt will have to take out separate procedings? If that is the case and we are concerned about a Camelford kind of error—human error, as we know, but negligence in the sense that the error was allowed to happen—are we to take it that should there be another incident (my noble friend has said that these things can happen again) the privatised company will act in the same way as the publicly owned company acted in this example? The Minister was kind enough to indicate the speed with which settlements had been reached and the size of those settlements. If he is telling us that the consumer in a Camelford kind of incident would be no worse off in future but that if the amendment was on the face of the Bill the consumer would be worse off because proceedings would be delayed, I think he should spell that out.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I should repeat what I said earlier. I was saying in relation to time that litigation is always lengthy. That is a fact and there is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Graham, attempting to question me further about it. He suggests that there will be some change in the approach of trying to settle out of court. My experience is that all people
1338
would prefer to settle out of court rather than engage in vast legal undertakings. I am sure that the successor company to the authority involved at Camelford would do exactly the same as the water authority in Camelford has.
Baroness Nicol: I confess that I am a little disappointed at having the Consumer Protection Act invoked in this case. However, I should like to read carefully what the noble Lord has said, especially in relation to the second part of my amendment. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 55 [Provision of water where piped supplies insufficient or unwholesome]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 321ZFC:
Page 63, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The effect of it is to delete subsection (2). Clause 55(2) deals with the provision of water where piped supplies are insufficient or unwholesome. The subsection that we seek to delete reads:
"Where under subsection (1) above a local authority requires the provision by a water undertaker of a supply of water to any premises, that authority shall be liable to the undertaker for any charges payable by virtue of Chapter IV of this Part in respect of the provision of that supply; but shall have power to recover the whole or any part of any charges paid by virtue of this subsection from the owner or occupier of the premises to which the supply is provided".
Clause 55 requires undertakers, when required by local authorities, to supply water for domestic purposes other than by pipes in cases where existing supplies are insufficient or unwholesome and where piped supplies would be impracticable at reasonable cost. While the general principle of the clause appears sound, concern is directed to the problem that arises when an undertaker's supply becomes deficient and is not capable of reinstatement at any reasonable cost. In those circumstances the water undertaker may find it lucrative to pay the £5 a day penalty imposed by the Secretary of State for breach of supply conditions, while at the same time charging a local authority for providing the same consumers with an alternative supply. Such a situation could continue indefinitely. By accepting the proposed amendment the possibility of such a situation arising could be prevented. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not wish to anticipate the amendment which I shall be moving next, which is on a somewhat different point, but I feel obliged to point out that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) provides that,
"power to recover the whole or any part of any charges paid … from the owner or occupier of the premises to which the supply is provided"
may be making provision for the impossible to take place.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 55 provides that, in certain cases, where it is not practicable at reasonable cost

1339
for a water undertaker to provide a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes to particular premises through its pipes, it may be obliged to provide a supply of water by alternative means. This would normally mean providing a supply of water by means of tanker or standpipe. A local authority is required to notify the undertaker of premises in its area where the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing water supply is such as to be a danger to health. The local authority would be liable to meet the undertaker's charges for providing the alternative supply but would be able to recover them from the owner or occupier provided with the supply of water.
The effect of this amendment would remove the liability of a local authority and ultimately an owner or occupier for any charges payable in cases where a water undertaker is required to provide a supply of water to premises other than by pipe.
The circumstances when an undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water other than by pipes would generally involve the failure of a private water supply. A private supply may become unwholesome or insufficient for domestic purposes and thereby constitute a danger to health. Because of the location of the properties served by the private supply, it may not be feasible for the undertaker to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes by pipe. In these situations the undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water by alternative means, usually by standpipe or tanker.
It seems to me wholly reasonable that in these circumstances the undertaker should be able to recover the charges it incurs from the local authority that required the alternative supply to be made. It is also reasonable that the local authority should be able to recover part or all of these charges from the owner or occupier provided with the supply. This would be the first occasion that the undertaker had been involved in providing a supply of water to the owner or occupier concerned. If the undertaker is not to be able to recover his charges, the costs would have to be borne by consumers in general. In the light of this explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is not a matter of great moment. At this stage in the Bill we are probing what will happen in certain circumstances. Can the Minister say a little more about whether the circumstances I have outlined could occur only with private water supplies? Surely in future they will all be private water supplies. None will be municipally owned, nationalised or publicly owned. So can the Minister tell us more? The Minister pleads that the costs have been incurred because an alternative source of supply has been required. Surely we must not make too heavy weather about the desire of a local authority or any public body trying to insist that there shall be a continuous supply of water for consumption either by the domestic or the non-domestic user. If he could say something, the Minister would be helping the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: I fully accept that the term "private supply" as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has
1340
presented it is slightly confusing. When we reach the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton an example of the private supply to which I am referring here would be a well on a private property that may supply a number of other houses. When we refer to a private supply in future we shall have a private undertaking, a plc, which has its obligations to fulfil anything connected to it. This is a private supply which, in effect, is a private private supply, if I may put it in those terms.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, well, well! That is the best the Committee will get tonight, and that is not very good. In view of the explanation that the Minister has given to the Committee I shall read what he has said, take some advice and possibly return to the subject again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness White: I wish to ask a question about the clause. I was surprised that no amendments had been tabled although I understand that some have been considered. I believe that the Committee is entitled to know from the Minister what the Government believe the local authorities should be undertaking as regards monitoring and reporting upon the water quality in their areas.
I understand that the clause carries forward responsibilities under Section 11 of the Water Act 1973. Under that Act it is an obligation of the appropriate local authority to monitor the quality of water supply for domestic consumption. I am advised that the reality of the situation has been that although a number of local authorities have highly qualified staff and adequate laboratory facilities, that is by no means universally true. In carrying forward the responsibility the Government do not appear to consider that anything is necessary to improve the facilities of the local authorities to enable them properly to discharge their responsibility. Some of the authorities have neither the analytical resources nor the professional expertise necessary to undertake the full range of responsibilities which may still be required.
In respect of earlier clauses the Committee has discussed the relationship between the department and the new drinking water inspectorate and technical assessors referred to in the Bill and the reluctance or refusal of the Goverment to consider that the director general may have some responsibilities. Some of my acquaintances in the water industry have responsibilities for monitoring and reporting.
In Clause 56 we are concerned with the local authorities. Later in the clause we come across the "may" and "shall" syndrome. Subsections (5) and (6) contain the vaguely permissive power of the Secretary of State because he may make regulations if he feels so disposed, or in appropriate circumstances.
I believe that we should not swallow the clause without any examination or explanation from the

1341
Government about where they believe local authorities will fit in the future. How do they regard responsibilities under this legislation as differing from those carried forward from earlier legislation? It was passed in 1973 in circumstances entirely different from those which we are now contemplating in the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to give a specific example which may be helpful to the Committee. The environmental health department of a local authority is responsible for many aspects of health. I am grateful to my local authority in East Lothian in Scotland. It came to my assistance when I sought to have a full analysis of the water taken from my private supply to 40 houses. I did so because until recently none of us thought of aluminium as being poisonous.
I am grateful that such a service can be provided by the local authority. I know that this sample will be sent to the national physics laboratory, but, nonetheless, I have had assistance in obtaining a full analysis of the water. Therefore I can satisfy myself and my neighbours that it is drinkable, and that is a tremendous help. It is the kind of function which should remain in the hands of the local authorities because I believe that they do an excellent job.
I hope that my example will help the Committee. People with private supplies of water should have them analysed from time to time. In my case, the last analysis was 20 years ago.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Baroness, Lady White, has rendered the Committee a service by reminding us of the special nature of Clause 56. Its opening words state:
"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".
I should like to know the meaning of the phrase "keeping themselves informed". What are the parameters? Is it the duty of the local authorities to monitor the activities of the National Rivers Authority and the Director General of Water Services? Are they to keep an eye on what the Government are doing through the Secretary of State? If the authorities were ever taken to court for failing in their duties to keep themselves informed would they have a defence? Can the Minister say where he sees the hierarchy of the local authorities in the pecking order of responsibilities in the supply and maintenance of good quality water?
Clause 56 is peppered with duties placed upon the local authorities. I do not remember whether the noble Baroness, Lady White, alluded to the resources required by local authorities but she has long experience of such matters. Perhaps it is the case that the words are idle, that they are just words on a piece of paper and that local authorities will have no responsibility; or, as I suspect, they could well be the fall guys available when things go wrong and someone is looking to place the blame.
1342
The Minister has not accepted duties which Members of this side of the Committee have sought to lay upon a range of other bodies. It is clear that in the scheme of things the Government see a major role to be played by local authorities. Clause 56 covers almost a page and a half of the Bill and some important regulations must be carried out and overseen by local authorities. The Minister would do a service to the Bill and the Committee because many local authorities will be anxious to know of the additional burdens which are being placed on them in their role as overseers.
Nobody is better equipped than the local authorities to look after the interests of those who live in the locality, and they have vast experience in doing so. However, they need the resources to do it. Can the Minister say whether the rate support grant will contain such an element in the future, thereby better enabling local authorities to carry out their responsibilities? Will the Minister simply say, "We already give them adequate sums of money. They will have to decide how they use it. If they decide to be less generous in its use in this role in order to carry out another, the consumer will suffer"?
Lord Hesketh: The clause imposes duties on local authorities to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of all water supplies in their areas. It sets out the procedure to be followed if a local authority has reason to believe that any water undertaker's supply is unwholesome or insufficient. Regulations to be made under the clause will require and enable local authorities to obtain information about the quality and sufficiency of water supplies in their areas. They will also set out how they are to perform their functions under the clause. Among the matters which may be covered in the regulations are the frequency of sampling and the recovery of costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out their duties. I am sure that will be welcomed.
The regulations to be made under this clause will entitle local authorities to receive regular information from water undertakers on every water supply zone in their area. This information will cover the general quality of water, the extent of compliance with standards in the regulations and the progress of any programmes of action to achieve compliance. If there is an incident in the water supply which may create a health risk in the area, the supplier must notify the authority. Local authorities will thus be able to ask for all the information they need about the standard of drinking water in their area.
Local authorities have a long tradition of interest in water supplies. They already play an important part in monitoring the quality of drinking water in their area. This clause will help to clarify and strengthen that role, enabling them to carry out their responsibilities much more easily. Local authorities will also have a direct route to the Secretary of State if they are not satisfied that their public water supply is wholesome. I therefore commend this clause to the Committee.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any difference between the

1343
responsibilities which fall to the local authorities under this legislation and the responsibilities which they have carried out under the 1973 legislation. What difference to their responsibilities will be made, if any, by the fact that there is to be this new drinking water inspectorate? That is an innovation and one supposes that it will have some effect on the responsibilities of the local authorities. Perhaps the Government do not believe that it will make any difference at all. However, I still feel concern that, as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton rightly emphasised, local authorities are being asked, without having any additional resources made available to them as far as we can judge, to continue to carry very considerable responsibilities, some of which must impinge on or overlap in some way with the changes made to the organisation of water supplies under this Bill.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness asked her question in two parts. As regards the first, as the noble Baroness pointed out when she intervened earlier, there were no amendments down to this clause and I have a considerable amount of information upon it but I do not have the relationship with the 1973 Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that statement and will accept a letter from me in order to clarify the question which she asked.
I fear that she did not hear what I said about cost. Even the noble Lord, Lord Graham, smiled earlier when I made it absolutely clear that among the matters which may be covered in the regulations are the frequency of sampling and the recovery of costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out their duties.
Baroness White: From where will they recover the cost of routine sampling? The first two lines on page 64 state:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority to notify any water undertaker of anything appearing to the authority to suggest",
and there are then a number of conditions which might appear to the local authority to suggest that something is not as satisfactory as it should be. This seems to me to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Government are altering the whole structure of the water supply industry, including drinking water and including setting up a completely new section of a department. They have not apparently taken into account the duties, responsibilities and costs of the local authorities. From whom are the local authorities to recover the cost of providing analytical facilities if they do not already have them and how are they to provide adequate staff with proper qualifications in a situation where the problems of water pollution are becoming more sophisticated almost every day?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister believes that I will accept that the cost to a local authority, which this clause lays down, can be dealt with by saying that, where a local authority requests or demands samples of water in order to see whether there is compliance with standards, the costs of
1344
commissioning those samples will be recoverable. That will only be a part of the role. We know that people will be involved. If the job is to be done at all, it must be done well and must be seen to be done well.
If the Minister wishes to avoid a vote on whether the clause shall stand part, he must acknowledge that, in addition to recovering the cost of samples, other costs will be involved. There will be the costs of running a new department. These costs must either be borne in general or there must be an allowance for them in the rate support grant. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that this is another instance of more and more duties being piled on the local authority without adequate resources being made available.
Lord Hesketh: There is a source of charge and a source of revenue. One anticipates that the source of charge will be met in part by the charge for the testing of private supplies; the revenue support grant will need to take account of extra costs for local authorities arising from this Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Clause 56(1) states:
"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 provided to premises in their area, including every private supply to any such premises."
The Minister believes that merely to take the water and sample it will fulfil all the requirements, but that will not be the position. There is the cost of running the department. Clause 56(4) states:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority to comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State".
It will not be possible to pass on the costs of doing that sort of thing. The Minister is telling us that the only way that there can be a recovery of money is by giving a bill to the people who have caused it to happen. Is the Minister able to be any more helpful?
Lord Hesketh: No, and I shall not be able to be of much more help. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is labouring under a misapprehension that the charge for a test will only be in the case of a test which fails. My understanding is that there will be a charge for the test.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that the Minister has gone as far as he can. I am certain that there will be local authorities outside and local authority associations which will view with dismay that the only way in which a local authority will be able to recover the cost of complying with this clause is by recovering it from such sources as the undertakers. I can envisage that before any samples are undertaken a local authority may have two or three people or £40,000 or £50,000 worth of human resources who will run the department. There is therefore that cost, as well as the physical cost of undertaking the monitoring, which will be inordinate.
My noble friend Lady White said that this is the only opportunity whereby we can deal with the generality of the clause. We have not sought to amend it. We simply want the Minister to explain

1345
what it means. What the Minister appears to have said is that in practice this is an additional burden on local authorities without the authorities being able to get back the money.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may say a few words before the Minister amplifies his reply, as I hope he will. This clause gives the Secretary of State extremely wide powers to impose duties, to regulate the performance of any duty, to prescribe the matters to be taken into account by local authorities in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) what is appropriate, and so on. There is not a word about any obligation on the Secretary of State to see that the local authorities are in any way recompensed for the duties that he unilaterally imposes on them.
Lord Hesketh: I think this is now the third time that I have said this. The Bill does not impose any new burdens on local authorities in respect of public supplies, only for private supplies; and establishment charges and overheads can be recovered when private supplies are sampled. Most of the costs of local authorities are likely to relate to these supplies.
Baroness White: Surely the private supplies are dealt with under Clause 57?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If she really wants answers to these detailed questions surely it would be much more satisfactory for the Committee, and everyone else, if she were to table amendments. The Minister would then be able to give a proper answer.
Baroness White: We are on clause stand part and it is the only way possible for any of us to raise these matters.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to cross swords with the noble Baroness. It is possible to table probing amendments just as everyone else does. The Minister can then give a reply.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord has put his own words to the test because he has tabled page after page of amendments, and that is his method of obtaining answers. It is not ours. I am not prepared to say that he is wrong; but I am prepared to say that it is another way of doing it. If the noble Lord is inviting us to table a further 100 amendments to the 300 that we have already tabled, we shall certainly consider it. There are different ways of dealing with different situations. The Minister has done his best, but his replies are certainly not acceptable to me or, I believe, to those outside the Committee. However, he has done his best and we leave it at that.
Clause 56 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: The Committee may feel that this is an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage for the Bill at 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved—[16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, international conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between countries which are party to the conventions. In this country the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order (made under provisions in the International Circulation Act 1952) prescribes the detail of the various documents, fees, minimum ages and enforcement arrangements, etc. which apply to our residents who wish to drive abroad and visitors from abroad who wish to drive here.
The principal order giving effect to those arrangements is the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975. The order which is now before the House is necessary to deal with a point raised by the European Commission in respect of visitors driving heavy goods and public service vehicles. In addition, provision is made for an increase in the fees paid for international driving permits and certificates.
In Article 4, visitors to Great Britain who hold valid foreign driving licences or convention driving permits may drive vehicles covered by their licence or permit for a period of 12 months from the date they last entered the country. This arrangement was limited in the case of heavy goods or public service vehicles temporarily imported.
Following a case which arose in Northern Ireland last year, it was drawn to our attention by the European Commission that such a restriction, when applied to residents of member states of the European Community, is in breach of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome (free movement of workers). Article 4 amends Article 2 of the 1975 order to close this breach by allowing residents of member states who hold an appropriate licence or permit to drive heavy goods and public service vehicles regardless of whether or not they are temporarily imported.
To allow for increased costs since 1985, under Article 5 fees for the issue of international driving permits and certificates for motor vehicles are increased from £2.50 to £3. These permits and certificates are issued by the AA, RAC, RACS and the National Breakdown Recovery Club.
I hope that briefly explains the main changes made by this order. The rest of the order is largely repetitive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are certainly grateful to the Minister for explaining the order. I read the explanatory note on the principal effects of the order, then I looked at the size of the order and I wondered

1347
whether it was as simple as the explanatory note suggested. However, the Minister has made the position clear.
I take it that if a person comes in from, say, France he can drive a PSV or HGV if he holds the appropriate licence in that country; but if anyone came from Sweden, similarly qualified he could only do so if bringing in a vehicle temporarily.
My only other question relates to paragraph 3 of Article 4 which deals with the BFG licences. Again, to make the position absolutely clear, I presume this refers to a person who has a public service vehicle driving licence. However, paragraph 3(b) refers to,
"any other such person, a public service vehicle brought temporarily into Great Britain".
This refers to a member of the forces who has a public service vehicle driving licence. Therefore, does this refer to dependants who may be resident in the UK or Great Britain? To whom does that paragraph (b) apply?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we also express our gratitude to the Minister for so clearly explaining this apparently complicated piece of paper. I should just like to ensure that the order makes clear that anyone who is disqualified in another country will not be allowed to operate in this country and presumably vice versa. With that safeguard we shall not resist the order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this apparently complicated but straightforward order. To answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, yes, a Frenchman coming to this country would be allowed to drive, say, an HGV which he brought into this country, as he is able to do now, and he will also be allowed to drive a vehicle which is already here, so to speak. That would not apply to a non-EC national who would only be allowed to do what he is at present doing—that is, to drive a temporarily imported vehicle.
BFG licences are issued to dependants of servicemen in Germany. Therefore, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would apply to dependants who are non-EC nationals. They would be treated as they are now.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to disqualification. Of course, drivers have to be in possession of a valid licence. If that licence is taken away by authorisation in a foreign country, the holder would not be permitted to drive in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8.5 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 57 [Remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 321ZG:
Page 66. line 25. at end insert—
("(6A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section a local authority shall take full account of the rights and obligations of the relevant persons under contracts, agreements or licences entered into by those persons and the availability thereunder of water fit for human consumption.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will add a new subsection which will become subsection (6A) to Clause 57. The subsection itself is simple and self-explanatory in its terms; but the reasons for it are less so. I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a short while as I attempt to explain the reasons for it. Clause 57 extends the powers that district councils already have under other branches of the law—mainly the housing law—to ensure that domestic premises are provided with wholesome and adequate water supplies. This clause introduces a new principle by allowing district councils to take enforcement action not only against the owner or lessee of the domestic premises concerned which need water, but also against the owner of the land from which the water has to come.
It appears from the terms of Clause 57 that that enforcement action may be taken even though there was a physical impossibility in the owner of the land providing the water or at any rate potable water and, even though it were possible to provide the water, it would be unreasonably costly to require him to do so. The circumstances vary greatly in which premises can be occupied but the water supplied from a source outside those premises and not on the land on which the premises stand. It would be impossible to enumerate all the different circumstances that can arise.
Perhaps I may give some examples from which it may be thought that it would be unfair to require the landowner to guarantee a supply of water which, as I say, may not even be available. Let us consider the case of an agreement between a landowner and the owner of a nearby house which may be on or off the estate. That agreement may do no more than entitle the house owner to make use of a spring or a well on adjacent land and perhaps give him access as necessary to the land to repair any pipes, pumps or other equipment.
That is one possibility. Another example arises in that it is very rare for private agreements to supply water to make any reference to the quality or quantity of the water supplied. It has always been assumed that water would be available and that it would be of potable quality. The introduction of a new law placing an onus on the supplier to ensure that the supply is both wholesome and adequate could pose a serious problem for him. That could be the case unless he is given power to recover from the consumer of the water in the domestic premises any costs incurred in carrying out the necessary work—if it can be done, which is not always possible as I shall go on to explain.
A third example is that even where an agreement specifies that the supplier of water gives no guarantee as to its quality or abundance of supply—I have been given a copy of an actual conveyance in which there is such a clause excluding liability—under Clause 57 it would be possible for the district council to require the supplier to take remedial action at his expense.
My fourth example is that in many cases an agreement to supply water is in the form of a contract of doubtful legality and enforceability as between the parties. It may have worked in the past, but only because the parties have either been unaware of its enforceability or have decided amicably just to overcome its terms. The introduction of powers to place entirely new obligations on the supplier under this clause could present legal difficulties which may be impossible to resolve.
So much for examples, which I am told have actually arisen along the lines of the four which I have given. Let us just consider the physical difficulties which can arise. Perhaps I may say here that I speak from my own experience of the family property which happens not to be in England or Wales but in Scotland. We had a hill with three wells on it. They had never been known to dry up even in a dry summer. Then the land upon which the wells stood was let to the Forestry Commission on a long lease. The conifers were so thirsty that in a dry season—that is, about every season in four—the wells dried up. Of course we tried to be decent and spent huge sums of money on having water brought in in a tanker from about four miles away—it was a round trip of nine miles—to replenish the wells so that the people in a cottage which was let had their water. However, that would not always be possible.
You can have the situation in which you get a series of droughts which simply dry up the water supply, whether or not trees have been planted above the wells. There may be nothing in any agreement between the landowner, the tenant or perhaps even the sub-tenant to cover that situation.
There is another physical problem which can arise. It arises in flatter counties and in Scotland, paradoxically enough. In the Fens the water table has a habit of going up and down like a yo-yo according to the season. You can have a situation in the Fens in which springs will dry up—indeed, you can have that too on the clay land in East Anglia—and so you can find that what had been assumed to be a constant source of supply actually fails.
One could multiply such cases, but I shall add only one more. It is a not unfamiliar one. It concerns development of one kind or another. Even in rural areas the large extension of a village can cause the immediately local supplies to be over-used, so that the natural supply through the wells or springs which were there is no longer adequate bearing in mind the greatly increased consumption through development.
Some Members of the Committee may be able to add to those examples. However, I hope that I have pointed out enough to my noble friend on the Front Bench so that he will realise that it simply would not
1350
be fair and reasonable to require the owner of the land to carry out the wish—no doubt a laudable wish—of the local authority, which is accompanied by enforcement provisions under Clause 57.
I understand—and it is understandable—that the Government expect Clause 58 to be used by the landowner concerned to appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice given by the local authority. But, of course, if that was so, it would still leave landowners with the cost of appealing, the delay involved—which may not be good for the domestic user—and with the uncertainty of the appeal. That does not seem to some of us to be a satisfactory solution; that is, to rely simply upon Clause 58 to overcome the sort of circumstances which I have tried to describe.
Therefore we say that Clause 57 should be amended so as to avoid inequity and legal problems which could arise if the statutory notices issued by the local authority conflict either with existing private contracts or with the physical conditions which have arisen as a result of change.
Therefore I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree that—I need not read out the whole amendment because it is there for Members of the Committee to see and it will appear in Hansard—to ask the local authority merely to take full account of the rights and obligations of the people concerned under existing contracts, or future contracts, and to take account of the availability of water fit for human consumption, is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: As an owner of a private supply which is piped from springs emerging not from my noble friend's Fens but from the Yorkshire chalk, I know something of the benefits of such a system. I also know something of the problems. I agree wholeheartedly with the duty which Clause 57 lays upon the local authority to supervise the adequacy and the quality of private water supplies. I further agree that there should be remedial powers. However, as my noble friend explained, subsection (3) enables the local authority to charge the cost of remedying a faulty supply, not only to the owner of the premises but also the owner or occupier of the land where the source is situated.
At first sight, this might seem fair. A man buys a house which takes its water from a nearby spring and, for some reason, something goes wrong with the spring. The local authority requires the supply to be put right and the cost is to be borne by the owner of the land from which the spring arises. But, as I know only too well, springs are not always reliable. They do not flow for ever. The owner of the supply, if he had been prudent when he sold the house, may have agreed with the purchaser that there could be no guarantee as to the quantity or quality of water from his spring. As my noble friend has explained, this kind of agreement is quite common in such circumstances.
My noble friend has explained the legal difficulties that might arise when the onus which is placed by Clause 57 on the owner of the source of supply is at variance with any contractual obligations. I can envisage a case where the owner of premises whose

1351
private water supply is below standard is being required by the district council to connect up with the nearest mains supply. It would be perfectly possible, as the clause is now written, for the council to charge part or all of the cost of connection to the owner of the private supply, which when it got to the premises was defective in some respect. Yet there may have been an agreement, to which the owner of the premises was a party, specifying that the supply could not be guaranteed.
It must be right for a local authority, when deciding who should bear the cost of remedying a faulty supply, to take account of the contractual rights and obligations of the relevant persons. I agree with my noble friend that such a duty might very well avoid the inevitable costly appeal procedure provided for by Clause 58.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether I may raise one further point on this subject. I hope that under the definition of "relevant persons" in subsection (7) the costs would be evenly divided between the owners and occupiers of all the premises which draw water from that supply. Then at least the costs would be shared. As has already been said, many private persons may own the water supply but we have no guarantee that a spring will continue to flow for ever.
The owners and occupiers of premises where the source is situated, who are referred to in line 30 on page 66, may have very little to do with the supply, partly because water usually has to flow a fair distance downhill before there is sufficient pressure in the pipes to enable it to reach the roof tanks that most of us have on our houses.
In my own case, the source of supply is two miles away from the estate and the owners and occupiers of premises away up there draw their water from other sources which have nothing to do with me. I hope that if the source dries up or becomes polluted not only can the cost be shared but that some sort of grant will be available for us to be able to connect up to a water undertaker's supply, whatever it may be.
Lord Wynford: I should like to express strong support for the words which were used by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Middleton in their argument of this case. This is perhaps a more widespread and important problem than some noble Lords realise. There are very great differences between those who have always known mains supply and those who have never known such supply and have always had to rely on private supplies. The one may not be fully aware of what the other has been doing, perhaps over hundreds of years. So I make no excuse for taking a little of the Committee's time to enlarge on this matter.
It is a widespread problem because private supplies have been developed over such a long time. They started at all sorts of different periods and in all sorts of different ways, but with the same object in view. The main was not available, but God's supply in the positioning of springs was available and people drew on those springs. But they all had one similarity. They all had aquifers below their
1352
feet. Where there are aquifers there are springs, and it was the springs that the people were using.
Chalkland, limestone, sandstone and green sand—if you put all these areas together all over the United Kingdom you have a very large number of systems. Some of them are very large, some are medium and some are small. I cannot quote acreages and square mileages for the whole, but it is a very large proportion of the total farming interest in the agricultural land of the United Kingdom. According to the Water Authorities Association—this is the only figure that I can quote to noble Lords—80,000 separate such supplies exist, but that means very little without being able to say what is the size of each.
If you go to the top end of the scale, whole groups of farms were run on this system and still are. In some cases, they have been broken up somewhat and the units are therefore smaller. But—and this is important—they did, and do, handle the water needs. First, there are the needs of humans, whether or not they are employed on the constituent farms of a group. Some of them—quite large numbers—are now not in any way deployed on the constituent farms. There are then all the stock in the buildings and out in the fields. Then come the dairy stock. If I may declare an interest, I have a milking herd of 150 cows. In warm weather, those cows will consume eight gallons of water in as many minutes—not all the time, but in large gulps during the day. This gets into big quantities of water.
We then have the water meadow situation, not all of which, unfortunately, is still working. But the fact is that water was used from these springs, channelling down across the farms on a falling contour, gradually dropping over several miles in some cases, watering those water meadows in February, in the cold weather, when the temperature of that water was about two degrees higher than the temperature of the air all the way down. That brought on the early grass, but in those days the water did not have the nitrates about which we now worry. I hope that I have demonstrated that a large variety of schemes have worked for many years. They were run by common sense and forbearance. If hiccups occurred and there were droughts, and so forth, common sense and forbearance were brought to bear. We are now moving into the age of obligations. Everything must be codified by strict law. That may be necessary, but it begins to make difficulties in the areas that I have described.
A priority for capital investment to bring in mains should be worked out in the near future. If there is likely to be trouble, the mains must be brought in. In those areas former agricultural accommodation -houses, rectories, and so forth—are full of people who need an increased water supply. It is outside the strictly agricultural demand. They sometimes forget that they bought a dwelling which the mains do not reach and that consequently the purchase price was that much lower.
I strongly support the amendment. It has great merit. We all look with alarm and despondency at the water authority boreholes which surround people in those areas. They let down into aquifers, and one

1353
of these days, at short notice, we shall suddenly find that our springs slacken. If they do, that will be the owner's problem. What price then would there be on common sense and forbearance? That may carry a message for a later amendment.
Fair and reasonable treatment is needed on the face of the Bill. We cannot rely on the appeals system. It is not good enough. The provision must be on the face of the Bill for everyone to read and note.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: I support the amendment for all the reasons which were so well put by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Middleton. What sticks in my gullet is that this provision would override agreements that have been entered into. To me that is more important than wells drying up and the unreasonable expense that might be incurred by individuals supplying water privately. I do not like the idea of arrangements properly entered into being, so to speak, blotted out, as they appear to be in the clause. I support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment is concerned with the powers of local authorities under Clause 57 to serve notices on owners or recipients of a private water supply requiring them to take certain action to improve the supply to comply with the drinking water quality standards. The amendment would require local authorities to take account of the rights and obligations of those owners and recipients of the supply, and also whether the water was fit for human consumption.
My noble friend Lord Renton has explained intentions behind the amendment with his usual clarity. The points he made are clearly very practical ones which need to be taken into account. My noble friend covered, as did other noble Lords, a broad spectrum. We certainly do not want to precipitate a situation where people are being deprived of a water supply as a result of local authorities using their powers under the clause.
We fully recognise that private supplies have very varied histories and circumstances, and that it is not possible to draft legislation tailor-made for each circumstance. However, the clause has been drafted in a way which covers all those circumstances and allows the local authority to tailor its action under the clause to the circumstances of the particular supply. There will also of course be powers to relax the standards wherever the breach is caused by natural circumstances and there is no public health risk.
Perhaps I may give an example of this flexibility. The example of a supply provided free of charge by an estate owner to properties which have been sold out of the estate is a useful one. The supply might not be complying with microbiological standards, and the best solution would be to install disinfection at the source rather than at each property served by it. The owner of the supply might not be able to recover the costs of this from the people benefiting from the supply, either because of their traditional rights to a free supply or because of the terms of a
1354
contract or licence limiting this. In such a case the local authority under the provisions of subsections (3)(c) and (d) could serve a notice on those being supplied requiring them to reimburse the owner of the supply the whole cost of the improvements.
If for any reason anyone served with a notice by a local authority is unhappy with the notice, he has only to write to the local authority objecting to the notice. That has the effect of referring the matter to the Secretary of State for decision. The Secretary of State may hold a local inquiry and has wide powers not to confirm the notice at all, to relax the standards, to confirm the notice with modifications and to direct the local authority to serve a specified notice on anyone not so served already. So there will be ample opportunity for anyone not satisfied with the local authority's proposal to put his case to an independent person.
Having described this appeal procedure, I am sure that local authorities will not wish matters to reach such a pitch. They will wish to use these powers with discretion to avoid creating a situation where there is a risk of water supplies being cut off, or a manifestly unfair result. The department will be writing to local authorities advising them of those provisions, and will draw their attention to matters such as those raised in this debate.
We have spent some time on the subject and I should like to read carefully what noble Lords have said. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Renton: Yes, I am sure that my noble friends and I are grateful for that assurance. I should like to thank them and the Minister for the consideration that they have given to this rather difficult matter. Before withdrawing the amendment perhaps I may say that I hope he will bear in mind the following three points: first, the point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor that we must be very careful not to interfere with existing agreements to which of course the local authority was not a party and of which it might have been quite ignorant when it made its decision.
The second point is that I appreciate what my noble friend says about the fairly elaborate terms of Clause 57, but I do not think he will find among those terms the specific obligation on the part of the local authority to consider the availability of water provided independently of the owner of the domestic premises. They may not even be premises owned by the person from whose land the water comes.
My third and last point is that in further considering the matter I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind the overriding point that by adding the amendment or something like it to the Bill he will save a lot of time, trouble and administration. If local authorities are obliged to take account of what is in the amendment, then they are less likely to create a situation in which the owner of the land providing the water has to appeal to the Secretary of State. So there would be a saving of administration if we accept the amendment. I am grateful to my

1355
noble friend and look forward to the Government tabling a proposal, perhaps at the Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Assessors for the enforcement of water quality]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZGA:
Page 69, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
("(1) The Director shall for the purposes of this section appoint persons to act on his behalf as Drinking Water Quality Assessors in relation to—")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 321ZGA I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 321ZGB and 321ZJ to 321ZN inclusive. I can cut the debate on these amendments very substantially because I referred to the matters in some detail when discussing Amendment No. 321ZBC. I then argued that the detailed monitoring of water quality should be the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services rather than the Secretary of State. These amendments would work in a similar way because under Amendment No. 321ZGA the Director General of Water Services would appoint persons to act on his behalf as drinking water quality assessors.
In the following amendments, the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under Clause 60 would be transferred to the director. I shall not go over the argument in detail. In reply the Minister referred to the drinking water quality inspectorate which is to be established in the Department of the Environment. I merely propose the amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more. It is not clear on the face of the Bill what the staffing will be and what resources will be available to them. In particular—and perhaps this is the most important point—it is not clear how they will be able to act in all the local areas where the assessment of drinking water quality ought to be carried out.
If the Minister can help with more information it would enable me first to withdraw the amendment and secondly to consider what action ought to be taken at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it so succinctly, a large part of the argument on this subject was deployed earlier today. The responsibility for making and enforcing the drinking water quality regulations will rest with the Secretary of State. As I pointed out then—I shall not replay the argument I made—one of the grounds on which we feel that this is important, among others, is that of public health. We believe that, because there is no basis for giving the director general responsibility for the technical assessors whose job it will be to assess compliance with the regulations.
1356
We believe that the director general is essentially responsible for economic regulation. To give him this power would constitute a major expansion of his role in the area of quality regulation. This would be a recipe for confusion between the roles of the director general and the the Secretary of State and that is why we urge resistance to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Even though we are not seeking to replay an earlier discussion, I could have wished that the Minister had responded to my suggestion that he might explain how these assessors—this inspectorate—would actually operate on the ground. Will they be based in Marsham Street and sally forth each morning to Northumberland or Cornwall? Will they be located in the regions where the inspectorial work has to be carried out? Is the Minister able to give us any guidance as to how this extraordinary piece of democratic centralism is to work on the ground?
Lord Hesketh: I hope that with the flexibility which we anticipate for it centralism is the very last thought that would be on the inspectorate's mind. At the moment we are giving the matter our closest consideration. The inspectorate's duties will be onerous. I can assure Members of the Committee that the necessary resources, which I suspect are the key to this, will be made available for it. I think it is fair to say that there is no question of a small team sallying forth in bowler hats from Marsham Street on a daily basis. I suspect that the members of the team will be distributed around the country, although of course reporting back to Marsham Street.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear that I shall not get a straight answer from the Government on the matter. I must reserve my right to come back to this important and erroneous provision in the Bill at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZGB not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 321ZH:
Page 69, line 19, at end insert—
"(1) No person appointed by the Secretary of State under this section shall be employed directly or indirectly by a water undertaker.").
The noble Lord said: We are taking the position of the assessors of the enforcement of water quality a little further under the amendment. We wish to put in a clause which would stop a practice which we fear could turn into an abuse. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure us when he replies. The amendment is designed to prevent water undertakers from becoming assessors for other undertakers and, furthermore, to prevent their employees, or those for whom they contract services, also becoming such assessors.
The difficulty in allowing water undertakers to monitor each other's performance is not just in trade secrets or impossible competition, but rather in the, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", type of regime which we know can develop, with everybody

1357
playing the game not being too hard on each other. Ideally, assessors should be appointed from independent organisations such as the Water Research Centre, or from the science departments of universities and polytechnics. I hope that some reassurance may come from the Minister on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from appointing as a technical assessor anyone employed directly or indirectly by a water undertaker. The technical assessors to be appointed under Clause 60 will form the new drinking water inspectorate to be established shortly. This inspectorate will be responsible for carrying out a technical audit of the undertaker's records and practices on assessing and safeguarding drinking water quality. They will check to make quite sure that a water undertaker is complying with the various obligations placed on it concerning the quality of its own water supplies. Compliance with the quality standards and action taken when there is a breach of a standard will certainly be investigated. Sampling arrangements and analytical methods will also be checked, as will the information made available to the public. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it would be completely unacceptable to appoint as a technical assessor anyone employed by a water undertaker. I can give an unqualified assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that we have no intention of doing so.
It will almost certainly be necessary to appoint full-time inspectors to undertake the investigations proposed. But, there may be some tasks, particularly when this new system for controlling drinking water quality is being set up and established, for which consultants will probably be needed. We will of course choose properly qualified people and this may well involve large consulting firms which carry out many consultancies at the same time, some of them almost certainly for water undertakers. The proposed amendment would prevent us from employing any such consultants. This would severely limit our choice, and quite unnecessarily so. It is common practice for large firms of consultants to have contracts with a number of clients, which in no way prejudices work for any of them. However, I can assure the Committee that no consultant will be engaged on terms which would permit him to undertake work where there was a possible conflict of interest. I hope with those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I find that a very reassuring response. I do not wish to cast any slight on the ability and professional knowledge of the many water consultancy firms in this country whose work is of a very high standard indeed. I am only too well aware of that fact. I am grateful for that response. It is reassuring, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 321ZJ to 321ZN not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Offences of contaminating, wasting and misusing water etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321A:
Page 70, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I wish to move Amendment No. 321A and also speak to Amendment No, 321B. Part of Clause 61 covers instances where water supplied to one person is supplied to or taken by another person without the undertaker's consent. This particular aspect has caused considerable concern because of the implications it has for people who act in good faith and provide water for a neighbour who has had his supply disconnected for non-payment of charges. As the clause stands, in these circumstances the kindhearted neighbour would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. We consider this to be unreasonable. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 321A and 321B have the effect of removing this provision from the clause. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, chided me when we referred to this matter earlier on this afternoon. He chided me for not having added my name to this amendment as I had complained about the effect of the subsection as it stood. I accept the rebuke. I must confess that I misread the amendment. As the rubric of the clause refers to contaminated water, I thought the amendment referred to contaminated water and not to the misuse of water. I think this is a good and realistic amendment, and in effect it relieves the abuse to which I referred earlier on. As the noble Earl said, such abuse would be intolerable. I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321B:
Page 71, line 1, leave out ("(2) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Regulations for preventing contamination, waste etc. and with respect to water fittings]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321C:
Page 71, line 17, leave out second ("that") and insert ("which is in any pipe connected with any such main or other pipe or which").
The noble Earl said. On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendment No. 321C and speak to Amendment No. 321D. This clause empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the prevention of contamination and waste of water. Amendments Nos. 321C and 321D are technical amendments to make it clear that the regulations are able to provide for the prevention of contamination and waste of water in all pipes for which a consumer is responsible, whether they lie outside or inside the consumer's premises. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the face of it these seem very reasonable amendments, and I am sure we shall want to support them. However, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether, with new regulations starting to apply to water mains inside or outside houses, there is any risk of any cost or inconvenience falling upon consumers. This is an extension, and it would be helpful to have an idea of what risks may exist.
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain as to the answer to the particular question that the noble Lord raises. I believe the noble Lord to be correct on this. However, if I am incorrect I shall of course advise the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321D:
Page 71, line 22, after ("been") insert ("or is to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 322:
Page 71, line 36, after first ("or") insert ("quality of").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 322 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 322ZA:
Page 71, line 40, after ("to") insert ("the registration of plumbers").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 322ZA and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 322ZB. The purpose of these amendments is to seek the sympathy and, I hope, the support of the Government in introducing what I consider to be a quite essential element into water quality, certainly in general but in particular in the domestic sphere.
I remind the Committee that Clause 62 mentions making provision for:
"such water fittings as may be prescribed".
Clause 62(2)(c) states that provision must be made for:
"such other requirements as may be prescribed with respect to the installation, arrangement, connection, testing, disconnection, alteration and repair of the fittings and with respect to the materials used in their manufacture".
Although this Government have a great fetish for deregulating and, in effect, managing and regulating matters as little as possible, I beg them to consider the importance of qualified plumbers in looking after waterworks, pipes, connections and other matters. Sadly, many people call themselves plumbers when they are not trained as plumbers. They are not qualified to call themselves plumbers. Anyone can call himself a plumber and get on with the job. I shall plumb the depths of this argument before we have finished—that is what you call a plumb line! A great deal of damage is caused by the cowboy operator, to use that immortal phrase. The term applies not only to the building trades but to anyone who passes himself off as qualified and trained in a particular trade. The public can be gullible.
I am asking the Government to accept that it should be laid down in statute that registered plumbers should be the people to carry out the functions referred to in this clause. The Government will have to make a case as to why they are disinclined to lay that down in statute. They may have a very good answer. I hope that it is not that things are going well without registration, because most Members of the Committee must know of some shoddy work, which is likely to have been carried out by unqualified or unregistered plumbers.
I have been advised in this matter by the Institute of Plumbing. Of course the institute has a vested interest, but I believe that it has a very good case. The Institute of Plumbing provides a forum for the registration, training and education of men and women who wish to become proficient in the trade and become qualified plumbers. It has a number of objectives: first, to enable the public to identify plumbers who have given evidence of their competence and who undertake to act responsibly; secondly, to promote the better training of plumbers; thirdly, to maintain a high standard of craftsmanship; fourthly, to raise the efficiency and status of plumbers. I am told that since the institute's register was started some years ago more than 60,000 plumbers have been registered as satisfying its standards. I am not competent to judge the basis of their qualifications, but there are over 11,000 plumbers registered with the institute today.
I remind the Committee of the incidence of back-siphonage, which is a consequence of bad plumbing due often to ignorance or incompetence of installers. I have a copy of a report of the DoE committee on back-siphonage in water installation which quotes statistics indicating that 61 per cent. of 1,300 installations surveyed contravened specific requirements relating to back-siphonage.
I believe that there is a case for examining sympathetically the protection of the consumer and also of the undertakers. Sad to say, apprenticeships, which hitherto have been a feature of our commercial and industrial life, have gone by the board. Small builders—and I am thinking particularly of members of the Federation of Master Builders—pay a very heavy price to ensure that they are qualified to carry out competent building work. I think that I have said sufficient to persuade the Minister that there is a very strong case for considering amending the Bill to ensure that the work which is specified should be carried out is carried out by registered plumbers. If the Minister tells me that this is not the appropriate avenue but that there are other ways of encouraging the public to use qualified and registered plumbers, I shall be very pleased to listen to him. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Although I accept that one should always use a registered plumber to carry out work inside a house, we are also dealing with undertakers' works outside a building. With regard to work outside a building, such as laying new pipes, new developments in that field and the new materials being used today require different types of engineering and completely different equipment. Therefore, although I am very much in favour of

1361
registered plumbers being employed for work inside a house I should be wary of requiring that they be used, particularly so far as concerns the work to be carried out by water undertakers.
I ask my noble friend to distinguish between the two sides of a building. Inside a house, for example, one uses hard-drawn copper which comes in straight lengths, usually with soldered fittings. Outside a house underground copper is soft drawn. It comes in coils and uses completely different types of fittings.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that the Government should consider this issue particularly carefully. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have considered the issue extremely carefully. These amendments seek to introduce a system of statutory registration of plumbers. As the noble Lord knows very well, this issue has been raised on a number of occasions previously.
It is argued that compulsory registration will lead to better protection for the public and that conversely the lack of it could have serious implications for public health and safety. Our position has been that, wherever possible, standards should be developed and maintained through self-regulation rather than through mandatory requirements which tend to restrict trade. We cannot see that privatisation will affect this position. Nor do we think that the overall accident record of the industry indicates that there are overriding health and safety considerations which would support the case for registration. Health and safety standards are maintained through building regulations and water bylaws.
I have to say that we are not persuaded that the arguments now being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, justify taking a different line on this occasion. I hope that the noble Lord will accept our position and agree not to pursue these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am disappointed with what the Minister has said. As he indicated, the arguments that I have deployed have been rehearsed before. With no disrespect to him, the response is a matter of record too. The Minister's argument rests on two points—an abhorrence of a restriction of trade and a belief in self-regulation. Self-regulation is another phrase for allowing either a body or individuals not to be regulated. There is little evidence that, when one leaves a body to self-regulation, it experiences either the discipline or the penalties and consequences of it. There needs to be a spur to action by the Government.
What action are we asking for here? We are simply asking the Government to say that, when plumbing work needs to be done, it should be done by qualified people. The line that we take—that qualification will come by registration with the Institute of Plumbing—may well be the wrong one, but I am saddened to learn——
Lord Trafford: The noble Lord talks about self-regulation being a bad means of carrying out things and that it is an open sesame to cowboys. However, was he present at Question Time when
1362
the lawyers pressed the case for self-regulation of the profession? Perhaps he has heard my own profession also press strongly for self-regulation. I do not believe that self-regulation is necessarily an argument that one should throw out of the window, whether it applies to plumbers, lawyers, doctors or anyone else. The noble Lord is on dangerous ground there.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall need to consult my lawyer first; perhaps I may have to see a doctor too. The last thing that I should want to say——
Lord Trafford: The noble Lord is saying just that. He says that he needs to consult his lawyer before he brings in his plumber in case the latter is not properly registered. Is not the matter becoming a little farcical?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord chooses to make the matter farcical, but the Minister and I are in a majority over his view in that we take this matter very seriously. The Minister has deployed the argument that the route that I have suggested—namely, registration, which would imply some form of discipline within the register—is not acceptable. I do not refer to self-regulation per se.The noble Lord put words in my mouth when he referred to cowboys. I did not say that all bodies that are self-regulated are cowboys, but my experience is that many bodies would prefer to be self-regulated because they fear the discipline and strictures that some form of government imposition might bring.
We have had a good run on this issue. I have raised what I think is a very sensible argument and I am disappointed that the Minister has not been prepared to accept it. However, there will be other opportunities to persuade people, if not the Minister and if not in respect of this Bill. This is a peg upon which I have been waiting to hang this argument. I believe that the argument is appropriate, although it has not been accepted. We shall try at some other time with what I still consider to be a very sensible argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 322ZB not moved.]
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Power to prevent damage and to take steps to prevent contamination, waste etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 322A to 322C:
Page 73, line 23, leave out (", or in any pipe connected with any such main or pipe,").
Page 73, line 27, leave out second ("that") and insert ("which is in any pipe connected with any such main or other pipe or which").
Page 73, line 30, after ("water") insert ("which has been or is to be").
The noble Earl said: Clause 63 provides a water undertaker with powers to act in cases where it has reason to believe that damage or contamination is being caused or water is being wasted, misused or unduly consumed. Amendments Nos. 322A, 322B and 322C are technical amendments to make it clear

1363
that the powers are to apply in respect of all pipes for which a consumer is responsible, whether they lie inside or outside the consumer's premises. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 65 [Standards of wholesomeness]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 322CA:
Page 75, line 44, after ("regulations") insert ("and with the approval of the Director").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Clause 65 deals with standards of wholesomeness. The first part of the clause reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that water that is supplied to any premises is or is not to be regarded as wholesome for the purposes of this Chapter if it satisfies or, as the case may be, fails to satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed."
Amendment No. 322CA would amend that subsection to read:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations and with the approval of the Director make provision".
I think that we have already demonstrated the differing opinions in the setting and interpretation of standards and in particular the conflicting views between the Government and the European Commission. An investigation into the track record of enforcement of drinking water standards in this country would show a history of relaxed interpretations, derogations from and disregard of standards, in particular as referred to in the document 80/778/EEC.
As the Bill stands the Secretary of State not only prescribes the standards of water quality by means of regulations but he is also responsible for the appointment of technical assessors and for deciding when it is appropriate to take enforcement action. There is no reason why the sole responsibility to prescribe standards of wholesomeness should lie with the Secretary of State. We consider that it would be more appropriate in the circumstances to separate the responsibilities for making and enforcement of regulations between the Secretary of State and the director general.
Our amendment enables a useful input to be made by the director general and allows his expertise and knowledge of the new regulatory framework to be used to the full. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We have been round this track a number of times today in some ways. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of the director general before making provision by regulations for standards of wholesomeness.
In the light of our previous discussions about the role of the director general, we believe that the amendment is something of an anomaly. However,
1364
it would make the director general rather than the Secretary of State the ultimate arbiter in this country on standards of wholesomeness. I remind the Committee of the arguments that I displayed earlier today; namely, that in view of the major public health and Community law aspects of this measure, we believe that that would not be acceptable. It is for that reason, as I said earlier today, that I urge the Committee to resist this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord does not disappoint me. He is quite right. This is another bite at the same cherry. We still hold the view that there is no challenge to the ultimate responsibility and superiority of decision-making of the Secretary of State in these matters. We simply believe that the Secretary of State cannot possibly be technically as competent as the director. I hope that the director will be a person who will demonstrate not only that he understands the water industry but that he has a feel for the thousand and one things that are required to make a manager into a good manager. The Secretary of State is primarily a politician and after serving in one department he may very well serve a stint in another and so on. He cannot possibly be as closely in touch with the water industry as is the director.
However, the noble Lord is fair when he says that we have already dealt substantially with the argument here. We think that the attitude of the Government downgrades the importance of the director general and the qualities that he brings to the post and therefore his ability to impress himself on the water industry and the world in general.
We believe that this amendment is certainly merited. However, there is no point in my pressing it further now and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 322CB and 322D not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [General sewerage functions.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 322E:
Page 77, line 15, after ("drained") insert—

("(b) to establish, within one year of its appointment, the number of communities with a population of more than one hundred inhabitants, not connected up to the system of public sewers, and, in consultation with the local authorities within whose boundaries these communities lie, to produce plans for the extension of the system of public sewers to these communities; and to indicate the order of priority in which these plans should be implemented;

(c) to ensure that, in every year until the programme of first-time sewerage schemes referred to in (new b) above is completed. The capital programme of the sewerage undertaker includes provision for the carrying out of one-twentieth, by value, of this programme.")

The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to this amendment on the Marshalled List. The aim of the amendment is to make sure that there is greater and more thoroughgoing sewage mains connection in rural areas. Section 14 of the Water Act 1973 places a duty on water authorities to provide adequate sewerage services within their areas.
District councils have long been concerned by the fact that water authorities throughout the last two decades have been more and more reluctant to provide schemes of first-time sewerage for communities in rural areas, thus putting them on to the public sewerage system. Water authorities were able to hide from the requisitioning power by means of Section 16 of the same Act which gave local authorities the power to compel the water authorities to place the local communities on bills but at the same time it meant that they had to pay for the actual service.
Due to lack of funding the net result was that very little work was done. The aim of the amendment is to make it a duty of the new water companies to place all communities of over 100 dwellings on the public sewerage system. It also provides a timescale over which this has to be done. In other words, within a year one has to have a timescale for all these communities to be put on to the main sewerage system. There is then a 20-year period in which the work has to be completed. The amendment also provides a scale of funding over the period.
I suggest that this is not a completely unreasonable amendment. There is no real reason why the task could not be completed within a given period. Indeed, in the 20-year period I would hope that the new water companies—if they are more efficient due to the benefits of privatisation—should be able to carry out this work. I can therefore see no reason why the amendment should not be given very serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment is to add to general sewerage duty in Clause 67 a specific duty for sewerage undertakers to provide mains drainage for all communities with more than one hundred inhabitants. Undertakers would be required to draw up plans for each community in consultation with the local authority concerned and to implement each year one-twentieth, by value, of the resulting programme of schemes.
In so far as the amendment is directed to securing suitable and necessary provision of first-time public sewerage to existing properties, this is an objective that we all share. But I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the amendment is unnecessary and that the Bill as it stands offers a better approach.
Clause 67 preserves the general sewerage duty which water authorities have at the moment and spells it out in more detail. It places a duty on every sewerage undertaker to provide, improve and extend a system of public sewers so as to ensure that its area is and continues to be effectually drained. In fulfilling this duty undertakers will be expected to plan and to carry out a continuous programme of works to maintain, improve and extend their network of sewers.
This does not mean that mains sewerage has to be provided everywhere. Private sewerage arrangements which operate satisfactorily are an effective means of drainage. As long as they are suitable for a particular locality, they may be considered to provide for that part of an undertaker's
1366
area to be effectually drained. Local authorities, with their public health responsibilities, have the power to ensure that owners of private systems maintain them properly. In other localities the circumstances will be such that only mains drainage can provide a satisfactory solution. It is likely therefore that each undertaker's programme of works will include plans for extending its system of public sewers at some stage to localities within its area where there are private arrangements.
We are also preserving in the Bill the present arrangements under which new sewers can be requisitioned. Clause 70 gives local authorities and the owners and occupiers of properties the right to require a sewerage undertaker to provide mains drainage. The requisitioner has to pay annually over a period of 12 years any difference between the charges for the use of the sewer and the cost incurred by the undertaker in providing the sewer. Rural sewerage grant will continue to be available to reduce the cost which would otherwise fall on the requisitioner.
The purpose of the requisitioning arrangements is to offer a means of securing that a particular locality is provided with a public sewer in advance of the time that the undertaker might be expected to extend its system to the locality under its general duty. A local authority has the option of requisitioning if it believes that earlier provision of a public sewer would be of benefit to its area. The owners or occupiers of premises with private sewerage arrangements will also, under the provisions of the Bill, be able to requisition a sewer, either individually or as a group, or to join in requisitioning with the local authority for the area.
The amendment seeks to establish a population criterion for the provision of mains drainage. We believe that this is not practicable. Quite apart from the problem of defining what is meant by a community, any general criterion is bound to be arbitrary in its effect and result in undertakers having to provide first-time sewerage where private arrangements are entirely suitable. Decisions on whether mains drainage is necessary must be taken locality by locality in the light of all the circumstances. Undertakers will, of course, need to liaise with the local authorities in their area in planning their forward programmes of work.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the general duty on sewerage undertakers and the requisitioning arrangements, taken together with the public health responsibilities and powers of local authorities, constitute an effective statutory framework for ensuring that mains drainage is provided where and when it is needed. I trust therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I seek to intervene because although the Minister made a fairly comprehensive reply which seemed to suggest that all the necessary legislation to deal with these problems was in place, I do not believe that it is for one minute. That may be the fault of local authorities. It may be the fault of water authorities. I am not sure who to place the blame on. It may even be the fault of the National

1367
Housebuilding Registration Council. I can give an example of an estate developed in the past 10 years in my former constituency where between 200 and 300 people live. A private sewerage system was put in to an approved standard; but because the builders refused to spend £1,000 to have the system tested—which is what the water authority insisted on through the local authority as its agent—those people are still on a private sewer. All kinds of things have happened since because of a collapse of foundation work on which some of these properties have been built. I brought the National Housebuilding Registration Council in because I felt it had some responsibility. Fair enough, it offered to put in £2,000 to be spent on repairs. But to get all those people together to try to have that money contributed is, as I am sure everybody knows, extremely difficult.
It seems to me to be absolutely outrageous that private developers, who make a lot of money out of an estate, can refuse to spend £ 1,000 so that a sewer can be taken over by the authority. I suspect that kind of problem will continue. One of the objectives of this amendment would have been to stop that happening. Although a whole plethora of remedies has been mentioned by the Minister—and I do not expect him to answer my question—it is sickening that it is still happening on new estates at this time. Builders are still making the same mistake. I hope that the Bill will give some strength to local or water authorities to ensure that that cannot happen again, and that developers are obliged to finish a job off properly so that the private sewerage systems that are put in in the first place can be adopted.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that we come to an amendment later on this subject and into which we can go in more detail.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord's answer was full and listed many regulations and bodies which are dealing with the problem. But the great number of them probably points to one of the problems here. There are many bodies and much permissive legislation. There are a great many people trying to deal with the problem. The aim of the amendment was to try to give some cohesion and base to it, to bring all the relevant people together and to give some kind of plan and structure to it.
I do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment, certainly not at this short a notice. But in withdrawing the amendment, I reserve the right to come back at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 77, line 20, at end insert ("; and

(c) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, to make reasonable provision for the reception and disposal of such trade effluent arising in its area as it is appropriate to dispose of through the public sewers.").

The noble Earl said: Like the previous amendment, this I hope is designed to produce a
1368
little more definition into the most wonderful, airy, nebulous Clause 67. I was going to read it to the Committee, but fortunately in his first answer to the previous amendment the Minister did so and we were able to hear how vague it is.
I mentioned my concern over this matter in the Second Reading debate when I drew the attention of this Chamber to the possible problems relating to industrial effluent. The amendment is designed to ensure that the reception and disposal of trade effluent via the sewers is recognised as a fundamental obligation of the sewage undertaker.
One may cast one's mind back. I am not suggesting that any Member of the Committee was present on that occasion. However, in the early days of the railway companies they came before Parliament and applied for Private Bills to enable them to establish their networks. They were given all kinds of privileges. In its wisdom Parliament said, "If you are going to have all these privileges you are going to accept the obligation to be a common carrier. In other words, provided that it will go through the tunnel on the route it does not matter what it is; you, the railway company, must carry it. You cannot say that you do not like carrying cows and that you will only carry coal". They were common carriers. I suggest that that obligation exists for the companies which will take over the sewerage system.
At present the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 confers on industry those rights, subject to certain reasonable conditions. which are similar to those for the discharge of domestic effluents and surface water run-off. The majority of trade effluent dischargers have no other economic route of disposal. If you are running a factory which uses a certain amount of water, perhaps for dyeing textiles, and you are in the middle of a town, you must dispose of the effluent down the sewer; there is nothing else for it. You do not have any other economic route if you cannot do that. Further, I suggest that the burden of proof must remain with the sewerage undertaker. He must prove that he cannot reasonably be expected to receive and treat that particular trade effluent.
There are nearly 30,000 consents at present covering discharge to sewer from industry. The water industry's income from trade effluent charges in 1987–88 was over £100 million. For all industrial dischargers it is imperative that the Bill protects their rights to connect and discharge their effluents to sewer. Obviously that is subject to any appropriate control conditions necessary to protect the sewer, the treatment facility, the workforce and the general environment.
The new water supply plcs should not be allowed to pick and choose what they believe to be the most profitable trade effluent for them to treat. It must be remembered that they will be the new privatised companies. They have the profit motive before them and they may say, "We wish to take this particular trade effluent. We can make more profit out of it. We shall say to the other chaps, 'Sorry, we cannot deal with yours; you go and find somewhere else to put it'.".
That is where the common carrier principle must come in. The companies will be accepting all the

1369
assets, such as the sewerage network and treatment plants. I suggest that the obligation rests with those assets. I hardly think that the Department of Trade and Industry would be happy with a takeover bid if the company taking over said, "Yes, we will accept all their assets but, sorry, we are not interested in their liabilities". The same situation arises here. It may be, as I hope, that the Minister will be able to convince the Committee that my fears are groundless and that the obligation on sewerage undertakers will still exist under the Bill; but, please, not by quoting Clause 67(l)(a), because it is to vague too be true. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 323 would add to the general duties of sewerage undertakers set out in subsection (1) of Clause 67 a further duty to make reasonable provision for the reception and disposal of such trade effluents, arising in the area covered by their appointments, as it is appropriate to dispose of through public sewers. This further duty would be without prejudice to the generality of the duties in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
Legislation governing the discharge of trade effluents into public sewers is set out in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937, as amended by later legislation, and supplemented in particular by provisions in the Public Health Act 1961 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The framework provided in those Acts is further modified by Clauses 69 and 73 and Schedules 8 and 9 of the Bill.
The cornerstone of these provisions is the prohibition on discharge of trade effluents into public sewers without consent. The refusal of consent or the imposition of conditions of consent have always been matters against which the potential discharger could appeal. In the past such appeals have been decided by the Secretary of State. In future, as a result of the changes made by Schedule 8, appeals would lie to the director general subject to one exception: in the case of trade effluents to which Clause 73 and Schedule 9 apply, requirements as to the authorisation of the discharge of prescribed substances will be determined by the Secretary of State, and not be subject to further appeal.
The existence of specific right of appeal, the need for which has not been challenged, has the effect of establishing that the sewerage undertaker has an obligation to accept a discharge of trade effluent in all reasonable circumstances; otherwise, the undertaker's refusal will simply be overturned on appeal. However, as regards the planning provision of capacity to meet trade effluent demand the general duties in Clause 67 are not, I accept, completely clear. I therefore have some sympathy with the ideas behind the amendment. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw his amendment I would therefore be willing to undertake to consider whether the relationship could helpfully be clarified.
The Earl of Shannon: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I shall have to read again in the Official Report all the various references which he gave because I could not quite pick them up at the rate he so efficiently gave them. However, in view
1370
of his undertaking and his kind offer to consider matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 322A:
Page 77, line 20, at end insert ("and

(c) where disposals are by means of sea outfall, to ensure that the outlet shall be a distance of not less than 2 kilometres from the nearest land, or greater if necessary in order to take account of the effects of tides, or of detergents in the sewage.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to try to discover what steps the Government intend to take to improve sewage disposal into the sea. Of course, I noted the reply of my noble friend Lord Caithness to a parliamentary Question on 8th May that this Bill will be "of immense benefit". I hope that my noble friend can give me some idea of the Government's thoughts on what "immense benefit" will be brought by this Bill and more importantly, where those thoughts are contained in the Bill. I am not happy with the powers under subsection (1) of this clause as they are not sufficient.
I have the privilege to live in Anglesey. Since the mid-1970s I have had a running battle with Welsh Water over the disgraceful state of some, if not most Anglesey beaches due to the discharge of sewage into the sea. I must say that Welsh Water was particularly unhelpful in the early stages of my battle. Many of the replies I received were worthy of Sir Humphrey in "Yes Minister". I suppose that my noble friend will say, "all the better to be privatised", but that is what I want to know.
Members of the Committee may have noted that since I tabled this amendment, the Department of the Environment has announced that it intends to commission a study as it is thought that the present system of sewage disposal into the sea, based on the Royal Commission environment report of 1984, is out of date, particularly as regards the length and effectiveness of long sea outfalls.
My amendment insists on a long sea outfall to take account of the tide and the amount of detergent contained in the effluent. That would prevent, for example, outfalls into the Menai Strait which Welsh Water assures me is all right because the material is shredded. However, as most Members of the Committee know, the Menai Strait is in no place wider than about half a mile. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me why it is more pleasant or indeed healthy to swim through shredded faeces rather than unshredded faeces. I am sorry to have to say that I have swum through both in Anglesey, and on balance I think I prefer the latter—though perhaps I should add that this has usually been because I have been unwillingly thrown out of a sailing boat.
Depending on my noble friend's answers, I should prefer to see all sea sewage properly treated rather than just shredded. That would remove the sludge, which is the worry. I hope my noble friend will agree, but if he states that it is financially impractical in the near future perhaps the Bill can be amended at a later stage to give the Secretary of State or the NRA rather tighter instructions to improve this disgusting situation and also put a date on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I support the analysis as set out by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, I raise a question mark over the solution he gives. We all want to see the problem resolved. I presume that my noble friend is assuming that simply extending pipelines to two kilometres will somehow or other resolve the problems all round and that the pollution will not reach our beaches.
However, I should like to give an example. In some parts of the country the water is shallower at two kilometres from the coast than it is closer to the coast. At Southend I understand the outfall is 1.4 kilometres long. At Southend the sea is deeper at 1.4 kilometres than it is at two kilometres. Therefore, if the amendment had been in force the sea outfall would be longer but would discharge into shallower water. If it is discharged into shallower water the substance, shredded or unshredded, would be less dilute. Having a standard two kilometres outfall raises that technicality. The amendment would also require immediate expenditure to lengthen all outfalls to two kilometres, and such lengthening could have an adverse effect that presumably is not what my noble friend Lord Stanley wishes to see.
Schedule 2, paragraph 2(3), gives examples of the conditions that the NRA may impose on the discharge concerned. Surely it is better for the NRA to consider each application on its merits, to decide on the optimum solution and not accept the minimum length of outfall which this amendment requires. I absolutely agree with the analysis of the problem but the solution must be a technical one and appropriate to the circumstances.
Lord Ross of Newport: As someone who has for many years lived in a seaside area on an island which is a real island, unlike Anglesey, but which has the same problems I support the noble Lord's arguments. However, if we change the outfalls now, God help us all, because our water authority has recently spent a fortune extending the sewer outlets at Ryde and Sandown and on the western end of the Isle of Wight. Large amounts of money have been spent extending the outfalls further into the Solent where there are strong tides.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord refer to the Department of the Environment inquiry into sea outfalls. If that is the case I hope we shall learn more about it from the Minister when he replies. I have been assured over many years that this is the safest way to dispose of sewage, provided it is macerated. Many of my constituents may hardly agree with that, but I await the reply with interest because it is an important subject.
Lord Renton: We ought to have outgrown the era of having sea outfalls for sewage at all. It is a most appalling way of disposing of sewage even if the pipes extend a long way from the land. If we had a proper sewerage scheme for every place that still has a sea outfall that problem would no longer be necessary. But, alas, we do not yet seem to have reached that enlightened state of progress. I hope that we shall do so before many years have passed and certainly before this Government ceases to exist. I hope that that situation will not occur for many
1372
years to come. We should carry on with getting rid of these outfalls. There is great help available to all local authorities in establishing sewerage schemes if they wish to do so.
When my noble friend replies to this amendment perhaps he can tell us how many sea outfalls still remain in England and Wales. If we knew the answer to that we would know something of the size of the problem. I hope that this debate will be taken by the Government and local authorities to show that your Lordships' Committee does not take kindly to sea outfall sewerage schemes
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: What an interesting little amendment! I am sure that it could keep us here for several hours. It has all the potential of developing in every direction towards sea or land. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where they are used, sea outfalls shall discharge at a distance of not less that two kilometres from the nearest land, or greater if necessary, in order to take account of the effects of tides, or of detergents in sewage, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley drew to our attention. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that coastal areas remain unpolluted. The Government fully share this objective with my noble friend Lord Stanley, and consider that the objective would be met by the provisions of the Bill as it stands, and will not be served by adopting the amendment.
The fact is that the amendment would replace the use of criteria designed to maintain the quality of bathing and shellfish waters with an arbitrary limit which has no particular justification. Under Clause 104 of this Bill, any discharge to controlled waters without a consent from the National Rivers Authority will be illegal. Schedule 11 makes provision for the NRA to apply appropriate conditions in respect of applications for consent. I hope that that answers the question of my noble friend Lord Stanley as to where it is in the Bill. This substantially continues the present duties under the Control of Pollution Act, Part II, exercised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in relation to water authorities' discharges. In deciding whether to issue a consent to discharge, the NRA will need to be convinced that the quality objectives of the receiving waters will be met and, in the case of bathing and shellfish waters, that the standards set by relevant EC directives are satisfied. The length of long sea outfalls will be determined in each case on the basis of environmental studies including the effects of wind, tides and currents.
That is why I believe that the point raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch is very relevant. You can quite easily have a long sea outfall that goes for half a kilometre in 800 feet of water with a very stiff tide. There can be another one which goes for five kilometres and still be in only 10 feet of water. We are of course aware that there remains a number of unsatisfactory short outfalls discharging sometimes above the low water mark. But water authorities are now spending £100 million each year to replace these. I believe that the number of outfalls in the United Kingdom can be measured in thousands.

1373
Thus while we have sympathy with the proposer's underlying aims, we believe that the amendment proposed is unnecessary, and should not be accepted. It is for the NRA to satisfy itself that schemes for long sea outfalls put forward by water and sewerage undertakers, meet the needs of the receiving waters and are soundly based. Legislation to impose an arbitrary standard can be no substitute for tailor-made solutions, which are required to deal with these difficult problems and which will be provided by the sewerage undertakers in accordance with the requirements of the NRA or the Secretary of State. It is a difficult matter, but I have tried to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Stanley that it is unnecessary for him to move this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he can tell me whether I entirely misheard him. I can hardly believe it, but did my noble friend say that there are still thousands of sea outfalls?
Lord Hesketh: As I am sure my noble friend Lord Renton is aware, many of them are very small indeed; they will just belong to single houses.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may confirm that I am quite certain that if there are not thousands there are certainly hundreds of them and they concern more than just a few houses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I think that all of us, including my noble friend Lord Hesketh, are on the same side; it is just a question of how we deal with the problem. Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Blatch that it was a probing amendment. I put it down before I read the report in The Times about long sea outfalls, and I fully accept the point. However, in mitigation I must say I put the amendment forward bearing in mind the tides. In Anglesey, the outfalls ought to go out about 25 miles across the Channel because of our tides. However, I take the point in that connection.
So far as concerns the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, after the debate I shall give him a cutting from The Times concerning research into the matter. As regards my noble friend Lord Renton, I must say that we often disagree. However, I could not believe my ears when he went further than I had gone. All I can say to him is that I am too timid to go that far.
I was delighted to hear that my noble friend Lord Hesketh supported the idea in principle. However, I must say that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty I am far from happy. It is really a question of where we start. Will the NRA be able to do what he says the Bill directs it to do? Will the authority, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, really be able to correct thousands of these outfalls? Does it have the money? I shall be most interested to hear on Monday how the Government reply to my noble friend Lord Nugent, who is asking for more money. It is a massive task which we all agree should be
1374
tackled. With that, I think I will leave the subject, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 324 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 324A:
Page 77, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 324A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 324B and 324E. I should like to start by taking up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He referred to the massive task facing the sewerage authorities. He talked about the specific case of long sea outfalls. However, I can assure him that the problem is very much more widespread and that the amounts of money concerned are absolutely horrific.
Over many years there have been contraventions of all acceptable standards of sewage disposal. In 1977 there was a national assessment made by the study committee on sewers and water mains which concluded that the amount of investment needed even then could be measured in billions of pounds. The record of the collapse of sewers, of the flooding of houses and other areas with raw sewage and the record of river pollution caused by sewage is an appalling one.
Members of the Committee who have been reading The Times this week will have seen a graphic series of articles by Paul Vallely about the River Avon—the Warwickshire Avon. It is clear from those articles that we have not only very heavy pollution of that river—it was not chosen as being the worst by any means; it was chosen as one which was an average river—but at the same time we have the single largest polluter of that river the water authority itself. In other words, the body responsible for seeking to improve river quality is itself the largest polluter.
The National Rivers Authority, with the abolition of integrated river basin management, is intended to deal with pollution, or is intended at least to provide the framework within which that problem can be dealt with. But it will not succeed unless the resources are made available and unless the powers are made available to the regulatory bodies to secure that the new sewerage undertakings do the work that is necessary to correct many years of neglect.
It will need a huge amount of investment. The problem is that investment in sewers for the new undertakings will not be particularly lucrative. This is not the area where they will exercise their entrepreneurial or managerial talents. This will be, as it always has been, the poor cousin of any other activities that they may have. Therefore, we seek in these three amendments to secure that the Secretary of State takes action to make the regulations which are necessary in order to get the sewerage authorities to do the work that is necessary.
Amendment No. 324A deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the occasions on which contraventions of sewerage standards under the Bill are to be treated as breaches of the general duty in Clause 87. What we seek to do is to make it a duty instead of a power. Amendment No. 324B refers to the power which the Secretary of State has by regulation to prescribe standards of sewerage performance. Our amendment would make it a duty and not a power.
Amendment No. 324E deals with the situation where the sewerage undertaker fails to meet a prescribed standard and has to compensate the person affected by the failure. That could be, for example, a householder whose property has been flooded by raw sewage. The Secretary of State has discretion under the Bill as drafted to provide for the payment of such amount as may be prescribed in compensation. We are saying that it should be a duty to pay compensation, because only with that duty will there be adequate incentive for the sewerage authorities to avoid, rather than simply compensate for, the damage that results, for example, from flooding by raw sewage.
I have said that sea outfalls are a special case. They deserve the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the well expressed concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, in many parts of the country there are sewerage authorities which are simply failing to meet the minimum standards of sewage disposal required in a civilised society. The Secretary of State should have the duty not the power to see that those standards are met following privatisation.
I am familiar with and weary of, as no doubt, the Committee is weary of, the arguments about powers and duties. But the seriousness of the problem with which we are faced and with which the sewerage authorities are faced is so great that on this occasion it would be appropriate for the Government to abandon their general principle against duties for the Secretary of State, and to show their real intention to correct the years of neglect by agreeing to these three amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. I have had experience of a water authority which discharged raw sewage on to my fields. I eventually went to court to stop it and all that it did was to put the raw sewage into its own stream. That is totally irresponsible. It backs up the case made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Water authorities must be stopped from doing that, which is why I feel that the Secretary of State should have such a power.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 324A and 324B seek to replace the powers in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 68 with duties to make regulations. Because we have covered this ground before, I shall make my points briefly. The first power is intended as the back up to powers of the director general under conditions of appointment to monitor the performance of the sewerage undertakers. Should
1376
the director be unable through informal means to secure that the overall quality of service achieved is at a level that best reflects customers' interests he may ask the Secretary of State to specify in regulations requirements which, if breached, will amount to breaches of the undertakers' general duty under Clause 67. The Secretary of State, who will be accountable to Parliament through the making of regulations, will be able to consider whether any new obligations which the regulations would impose, and for which customers would have to pay, are appropriate. His discretion to make regulations retains that accountability.
The regulations under subsection (2) are to be made under the same procedure and will prescribe standards in day-to-day relations between the sewerage undertaker and the individual which, if not met, will entitle the persons affected to payments by the undertaker—the guaranteed standards scheme. Draft regulations are currently out for consultation and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, acknowledged on Monday in relation to an identical amendment on Clause 38, it is clear that the Secretary of State will make those regulations. It is nevertheless right that the Secretary of State should have discretion to decide whether further regulations should be made to supplement the scheme.
Amendment No. 324E would require those regulations to prescribe the amounts to be paid where the prescribed standards are breached. The draft regulations as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows do that. I repeat that in developing the scheme in the future it would be wrong to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether any new obligations which fresh regulations would impose should be made. I made the same point on Monday on Clause 38, and for those reasons I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am puzzled by the Minister's last remark. He suggests that by replacing a power with a duty our amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations which would create new conditions and new powers. I cannot see how the amendments do that. I shall take the three in turn. First,
"the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for contraventions of such requirements as may be prescribed to be treated for the purposes of this Act as breaches of that duty".
The Secretary of State has the ability, as the Minister has said, to extend that provision. He is basing it on the director general's activities when acting as regulator. Nothing in my amendment stops the Secretary of State extending the scope of the regulations.
By the second amendment, "The Secretary of State" we say, "shall" and then
"by regulations prescribe such standards of performance in connection with the provision of sewerage services as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved in individual cases".
Saying that the Secretary of State "shall" do it now does not mean that he may not do more in the future. The third example is "such regulations may" and we say "shall" and then
"provide that… a sewerage undertaker… shall pay such amount as may be prescribed";

1377
in other words, compensation. Again, compensation regulations can be added to within the scope of the subsection, amended as we propose.
Will the Minister tell us why he suggests that our amendments prevent the Secretary of State making improvements to his regulations later? I do not see that point in the text.
To give the Minister an opportunity to reply, perhaps I may make the more fundamental point which lies behind the amendments; that the proposed draft regulations may well be acceptable, as the Minister suggested. I am aware of the draft regulations, their virtues and some of their drawbacks. The point that we are trying to make is that all Secretaries of State, not just this Secretary of State, must have a continuing duty to secure that the regulations exist, that they are adequate and that they meet changing conditions. Anything less than that simply will not satisfy those who are aware of the defects of our sewerage system.
I find it astonishing that the Government collectively—I am not talking about the Minister here tonight—should be so politically naive as to risk electoral unpopularity by failing to take adequate measures to secure that our sewerage system is brought, at a deliberate but not dilatory pace, up to the standards that we require at the end of the 20th century. I am happy to give the Minister an opportunity to explain why he thinks my amendments impose any limitation on the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: I think that there may be an error in that remark. It is important that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh wishes the Secretary of State to make regulations. I believe that that is quite an important point, because there is a parallel here. I remind the noble Lord that on Monday we made it clear that we foresaw this happening. He wishes to ensure that this is on the face of the Bill, but on Monday we decided that we would agree to differ on the principle of achieving the same aim. That is what I was trying to explain just now, in an inadequate way, for which I apologise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that my amendments do not involve any limitation on the Secretary of State. I believe that my two fundamental points are still valid, indeed the more so from the Minister's retraction of his earlier remarks. The first point is that there must be a continuing duty on all Secretaries of State. That would not be achieved by the "may" formula which is in the Bill at present. The second is that it seems to me that it is political suicide for the Government to neglect the widespread and justified concern that exists over the state of our sewers. They should not neglect an opportunity to put things right which exists and would exist and be strengthened by the acceptance of our amendments.
It is only the time of night and the thinness of the Committee that prevents me putting the matter to a vote now. I can assure the Government that it will take a high priority at a later stage of the Bill and I am convinced that noble Lords on all sides of the
1378
Committee will wish to have an opportunity to improve the standards of our sewerage services. They will not be satisfied that the Bill as drafted is adequate for that purpose. Without in any way having withdrawn the arguments for my amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 324A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 324B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 324C:
Page 77, line 36, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, before the sale of shares in any undertaker").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments No. 324D and 324F. I do not need to go over the ground about the inadequacies of our present sewerage arrangements. That has been adequately dealt with both by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and in the discussion on the previous amendment.
The Government accept that there will have to be asset management plans; in other words plans which will reveal the degree to which the assets of the sewerage undertakings—basically the sewers—will have to be managed and improved in the period following privatisation. It would not do much good if they did not agree because under the law—the Financial Services Act—the prospectus which will have to be issued for privatisation will have to include such asset management plans. It is already clear that work on these asset management plans is progressing.
We are saying with these amendments that detailed asset management plans ought to be produced before the sale of shares of any undertakers. It ought not to be left to the Financial Services Act to secure that, but we ought to secure it in this Water Bill. That is why Amendment No. 324C states that the plans have to be produced,
"before the sale of shares in any undertaker".
Amendment No. 324D states that the plans must be detailed. Clearly plans of a high degree of generality will neither satisfy prospective shareholders nor the customers of the sewerage undertakings. Amendment No. 324F refers to the publication of regulations and the publication of,
"detailed plans for the management of the assets in the area of each individual undertaker … to secure the proper carrying out of its functions in relation to the standards of performance prescribed under this section".
If one takes away the language of legislation one sees that the amendment seeks to ascertain how the sewerage undertakings will invest in order to bring their sewers up to the required standards. By any standards, or by any measurement, there is a huge amount to be done. Within the Thames Water area some 13,000 homes are frequently flooded with raw sewage. In Greater Manchester, the number of sewage incidents reported every year is 36,000. There is no assurance whatsoever in any of this legislation that the necessary investment will be undertaken.
I realise it is difficult in such a complex business as sewerage to establish what the standards of

1379
performance ought to be in order to establish what investment is necessary to enable the assets to be used to bring sewerage undertakings up to standard. However, I can suggest a way that may be undertaken. Items which should be included are: flood protection from both foul and surface water; the structural condition of the sewers; river water quality; the safety of the system; the standard of maintenance of the system; and the efficiency of the system. We can envisage how standards ought to be maintained and how target standards could be established. If we consider flooding as a result of storms for example, we could provide that all properties should be protected against foul flooding in storms of a frequency of less than one in 10 years. That refers to the degree of severity of the storms. However, that does not happen at the moment.
Under Welsh Water at the moment, capital can be spent if there is a risk of flooding from storms of a frequency of one in 50 years. However, under Severn Trent capital can be spent if there is a risk of flooding as a result of storms with a frequency of once in one year. This degree of variation between one water undertaking and another is simply unacceptable. There ought to be definitions of levels of service and definitions of targets, so that by 1995, for example, the number of properties failing to meet the standards, and therefore affected by flooding, would be reduced to half of 1 per cent. There should be a trigger whereby, when conditions reach so bad a level, immediate remedial action is taken. There should also be levels of upgrading.
All of those provisions are perfectly proper, normal and standard business decisions. They are decisions that a private business should be taking if it is going to exercise its responsibilities adequately. At the moment adequate assurance has not been given that the Government appreciate the need after privatisation to regulate the sewerage business in the same way as the drinking water business will have to be regulated. There is so much to be done. However, the Government do not appreciate the need for proper business planning in the sewerage area to secure that what needs to be done is done.
This, again, is matter of the utmost seriousness. It may not be a matter which gains the headlines, but for those who are affected by it it is of very great importance. The privatisation proposals and this Bill will be desperately flawed unless something more is done than is proposed here. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324C would require the regulations under subsection (2) to be made before the sale of shares in any undertaker. Amendment No. 324D would require the same regulations to prescribe detailed standards. Amendment No.324F would insert a new subsection (2A) in Clause 68 requiring the publication of any regulations under subsection (2) to be accompanied by such plans for the management of the undertakers' assets as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with standards of performance prescribed under this clause.
1380
It is important that the Secretary of State should have discretion to add to the guaranteed standards scheme in order that it can be expanded as appropriate. Although we intend that the scheme should be in place before flotation, we wish to retain the Secretary of State's discretion to add to it afterwards. We have yet to be accused that the standards in the guaranteed standards scheme are expressed too generally. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to prescribe for over-regulation in day-to-day commercial practice, which might be the implication of Amendment No. 324D.
Condition K of the model instrument of appointment requires the sewerage undertaker to adopt a system of underground asset management plans which can be independently assessed and reported on to the Director General of Water Services. We do not believe that the task of the director should be to second-guess management. The existence of underground asset management plans will nevertheless provide an important safeguard against neglect of underground asset networks, where time-scales for investment are long and the impact on quality of service is gradual. Elsewhere we believe that the specific safeguards we have provided about the quality of service and quality of environmental performance form the right framework within which it can remain the companies' responsibility to manage their businesses. Regulations under Clause 68 do not need to be accompanied by detailed plans. Indeed, it is the consequences of failure to plan on some specific aspect which might lead to further regulations being made under subsection (2).
For those reasons, we believe that these amendments should be resisted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the Minister seems to be falling into the same trap as he fell into before. He asserts now, as he asserted in connection with the last group of amendments, that the amendments inhibit the Secretary of State from making further regulations or detailed plans later. That is not the case. He should not have repeated the same claim as he made before and had to withdraw.
There is nothing in these amendments which stops the Secretary of State from making or altering such regulations later. We say that the Secretary of State has to make plans before the offer of shares for sale. That is agreed. The law requires it; the prospectus will have to say it. The interests of both the shareholders and the users of sewerage services—all of us—surely require that those plans should be sufficiently detailed for customers of sewerage undertakings to know whether they are at risk and what is being done.
Many people are at risk from defects in our sewerage system. So much has to be done that a degree of open government is an essential part of this legislation. The matter has been neglected for many years because there has not been adequate legislation on the subject. At a time when the transfer of ownership of sewerage undertakings into the private sector is taking place it is inexcusable that the Government should not take the opportunity to seek to reassure the British public, not that things are right—because they are not—but that something effective is going to be done about it.

1381
As with the previous amendment, it is only because of the lateness of the hour and not because I am convinced by the answers given to me or convinced that the matter is not as serious as I believe it to be that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 324D to 324F not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 324G:
Page 77, line 41, at end insert—
("(2A) No regulations shall be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has first consulted those associations of local authorities whose members include authorities acting as a sewerage agent.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of any regulations to each local authority acting as a sewerage agent at the date of passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Renton: Noble Lords will see that the next amendment on the Marshalled List is also an amendment to add words at the end of line 41 of page 77. I think that, logically speaking, that amendment ought to be considered—although it is not in the order to do so—before the amendment about to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I say that for this reason: my amendment deals with an extension of the power to make regulations. His amendment deals with general matters covering all types of regulation and therefore would come naturally at the end of the clause, rather than in a subsection preceding mine. However, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee in this matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall proceed as quickly as possible. I understand what the noble Lord has said, but Amendment No. 324G seeks to involve the views of local authorities earlier rather than later in the regulation-making processes.
Local authorities operate the full sewerage function for 92·5 per cent. of the population and a great reservoir of expertise and local knowledge lies in the engineering departments of local authorities. They are responsible for such functions as computer simulation of sewer networks, hydraulic analysis, structural assessments, drainage area planning, detailed design work, specification and contract management. Local authorities are the primary contact for consumers who experience problems with drains and sewers. When foul smells arise, holes appear in the road, streams are full of sewage and houses are flooded, consumers bring their fears, anxieties and complaints to their town hall as they have done for 100 years and as they will do for the next 100 years, regardless of privatisation.
The interests of consumers need to be carefully protected as sewerage services are taken out of public accountability and into private monopoly ownership. The setting of adequate performance standards is a vital part of that protection of consumer interests. But, if the acknowledged experts are not consulted, there can be little public
1382
confidence in the resulting performance standards. There will be grave doubts as to whether the controls are adequate. There will be serious concern that present standards will fall and that consumers will receive an inferior level of service.
The Under-Secretary of State has given personal assurances, but those are not sufficient guarantee. In Standing Committee, he assured us that it was his intention to consult on the draft regulations in March and April and that local authorities would be consulted through the usual procedures. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether those consultations have taken place and what stage they have reached.
We believe that it is totally irresponsible if the Minister does not adequately take into account the judgment of those who have the most experience of the sewerage system and the closest contact with the consumer. The whole purpose of standards of performance is to ensure that the consumer receives a satisfactory service. The adequacy of performance standards can be guaranteed only if proper consultation with local authorities becomes a minimum legal requirement and, as such, is written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324G would require the local authorities in connection with their role as sewerage agents to be consulted before regulations under subsection (2) are made and copies of the regulations to be sent to the sewerage agents. The fact is that the functional responsibilities lie with the undertakers themselves. Furthermore, regulations may relate to matters which are in no way reflected in the role of the sewerage agents or to specific areas in which there may be no agency.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has pointed out with reference to my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place, I should now make absolutely clear that local authority associations are currently being consulted on those draft regulations. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: One cannot have fairer than that. In effect in this instance we are being asked to do what is already being done at the present moment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and have consultations outside to see whether this is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 324H:
Page 77, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (2) above, or to any right which any person may have by virtue of any other section of this Act or any other Act to bring proceedings in respect of any such right, the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require a sewerage undertaker to pay such amount as may be prescribed to any person affected by flooding of a prescribed description, from any public sewers provided by that sewerage undertaker under the duties imposed by section 67 above.".
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and the Committee will see that it is a starred amendment which I very rarely agree to table.
However, the National Consumer Council late yesterday afternoon sent me a request to table this amendment. It had to be tabled by 6.30 and I was engaged on other proceedings on the Bill so I had to table it without having the time to consider ways in which it might be improved. I must say that had I had that time, this amendment would have been differently drafted.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes the regulations that he is empowered to make under Clause 65, which are primarily regulations governing standards of performance in connection with the provision of sewerage services, he should be given power—it is not an obligation but only a power—to make regulations requiring the sewerage undertaker who allows or causes foul water from the public sewer to damage somebody's land or house or other interest to pay compensation under those regulations whatever other rights the person concerned might have.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind that under this Bill there are all kinds of ways—in fact there are nine different provisions—for seeking redress under Part II of the Act alone. I shall not enumerate them all, although I have details with me should anyone press me to give them. They are really very numerous. However, strangely enough there is no right of redress granted for the overflow from the public sewer of foul water or sewage. Therefore one feels that this is something which ought to be covered if we are covering all those other matters.
I should disclose that the National Consumer Council have had a meeting with my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, QC, MP, who gave the matter careful consideration but concluded that the power should not be given in the form of statutory compensation for foul flooding independent of negligence. He said that it should not be done because of the difficulty of making a provision which is worthwhile to the consumer and yet fair to the undertaker. He said:
"As you will appreciate, foul flooding often occurs for reasons outside the reasonable control of the undertaker".
That may well be so, but he ought to have a very strong obligation to control the matter. That is my first point.
My second point is this. There are other causes within his control. When the cause of the flooding is within his control, and the flooding causes foul water to run over somebody else's property, there should be a liability to compensate irrespective of negligence and irrespective of other opportunities of redress which the person affected may have.
As I say, at this stage this is a probing amendment. It is simply a question of whether power should be given to the Secretary of State to make regulations to require such compensation to be paid. In order to give my noble friend a little more time to consider the matter—as I can see that he is doing at present—perhaps I may just point out that there are quite useful provisions in the Bill—indeed, some of them are in this clause—requiring performance targets and measurement schemes with regard to sewers. They would be a performance indicator.
1384
But that does nothing to compensate the individual consumers who are affected when there is failure. It simply serves to measure in percentage terms whether or not the undertaker has met the target. I think we ought to do something about that. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment, even though it has been put forward as a probing amendment, relates very clearly to the amendments that I have already moved. The question of whether one can have adequate asset management plans that set adequate targets is crucial to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is putting forward.
I have argued that one can. I have argued that it is possible to set standards and targets, and that if those standards and targets are not met the sewerage authority would be at fault and the redress to which the noble Lord refers ought to be made available. It is also relevant to the discussion that has already taken place because this amendment—even though it may be defective in drafting terms—secures that the Secretary of State has this continuing duty to ensure that matters are put right. If there is redress there is an incentive to the undertaker to put things right and to avoid the necessity for neglect. The continuing duty is an essential part of the argument that is taking place over this Bill.
With all the reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has about his own amendments, I know that his argument is in the right direction. Even if he has to withdraw his amendment now, I hope that together we may reach agreement on a better way to protect the consumer when we return to this Bill at a later stage.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324H seeks to ensure that the regulations to be prescribed under subsection (2) will include foul flooding and that such inclusion in these regulations would be without prejudice to an individual's right to take action under any other part of this Bill.
It would be quite wrong to include foul flooding in the guaranteed standards scheme. Compensation of £5 would be quite inadequate in relation to the loss or damage sustained in some cases as a result of foul flooding. Furthermore, foul flooding will not necessarily affect people as customers. It could be, and often is, caused by acts of negligence by neighbours; for example, when they block their sewers with unsuitable material, causing backing up and flooding.
I emphasise that quite separate from the guaranteed standards scheme foul flooding will be one of the mandatory service standards, and the director general will be able to act under his parallel powers to specify in regulations standards for improvement, enforceable if necessary.
Liability of the undertakers for foul flooding from sewers is a complicated area of law which has been described by the courts as a rough sea of contradictory authority. In general, if a sewage undertaker were negligent in the operation of its sewers and that caused foul flooding and consequent

1385
damage, the persons who suffered damage would be able to bring an action for negligence against the undertaker.
Finally, the industry listens sympathetically to claims consequent upon incidents of foul flooding and operates a scheme of ex-gratia payments. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for that interesting comment on the situation. We shall naturally wish to consider it. I would hope, however, that this rough sea of contradictory decisions by the courts is something which we could smooth out by one simple provision in this statute. It would be a splendid thing if we could.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps it could be achieved by pouring macerated sewage over troubled waters?
Lord Renton: If I may say so, that frivolous comment is a little bit beside the point. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall further consider the matter, as I am sure he will, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 325 and 326 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 326A:
Page 78, line 6, at end insert—
("(cc) make provision for the satisfactory carrying out of rodent baiting").
The noble Lord said: We are seeking here to add to the clause which deals with the standards of performance. In other words, we are trying to lay down duties which ought to be carried out. It is perfectly clear and bald and well-understood. We seek to lay down a duty to make provision for satisfactory rodent baiting. I know that the Committee will understand that this is not only a serious matter, but that it is raised with serious intent.
Local authorities responsible for rodent control programmes are becoming increasingly concerned. The disturbing result of a survey conducted earlier this year by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities revealed significant underfunding by the regional water authorities for the work of sewer baiting.
In the interests of the nation's health and safety it is becoming more and more evident that the provisions of the Water Bill must include standards of performance relating to sewer baiting to combat and control an already significant nuisance from becoming completely out of hand.
Local councils undertake a regular annual programme of rodent control in sewers. This assists in decreasing the rat population in sewers, thereby reducing both health risks to workers and deterioration of pipework caused by rat activity. The adequate control of rats underground ensures a decrease in surface infestations.
A number of disturbing pieces of evidence have been revealed in the survey undertaken by the AMA. In Manchester for example, the number of surface infestations has doubled in the past six years. Wakefield's rodent problem doubled in 1988 compared with the previous year. Newcastle has seen a 50 per cent. increase during the period 1986–88, while the local authorities of Dudley, Wigan, Barnsley and Barnet have experienced about a 30 per cent. increase on the previous year's figure.
There are several reasons for the increased activity, including a reduced sewer baiting programme; the relatively mild weather over the previous two winters; sewer and drain defects which provide convenient exit points for rats; and an increased food supply both in sewers and on the surface, due largely to an increase in takeaway food shops leading to the increasing disposal of unwanted food on city streets.
The Committee and the Minister will be aware of the prevalence of Weil's disease or leptospirosis. It is an organism which is passed through rats' urine. The disease is painful and debilitating in humans. I have been told that over the past 10 years there have been 444 cases of Weil's disease leading to nine deaths. It is generally accepted that across the country there are as many rats as people; a staggering 50 million rats living in our sewers. In Manchester there are roughly 80,000 manholes of which about 35 per cent. are known to be infested by rats. There is sufficent funding to bait only about 12,000 a year. On that basis it could take as long as seven years to bait the entire manhole complex.
The local authorities in Harrow and Waltham Forest comment that Thames Water Authority has reduced its budgets for funding sewer baiting. Indeed, the latter authority accused Thames Water Authority of reducing funding to an all time low. Yorkshire Water Authority has asked Wakefield for cuts in its costs, although in 1988 the local authority had few problems in obtaining finance. The same water authority has queried the cost of sewer baiting in Barnsley. In Newcastle, where approximately 40 per cent. of the city-centre manholes are infested, a request to the Northumbrian Water Authority for increased funds has also been rejected.
I am aware that the Minister will be in possession of the same facts. We are concerned that not only is this a terrible position which may or may not be tackled energetically, but it is an appalling position which ought to be approached head on. We believe it is essential that in order to protect the public the Water Bill has encompassed within it provisions such as rodent control programmes and adequate frequencies of baiting as laid down by MAFF in its guidelines. We believe that they should be part and parcel of specific standards of performance to be expected of all sewerage undertakings.
I know that the Minister understands that this is a serious matter. However, it is a simple matter to lay down the duty without which we believe the position will become even worse. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 326A would impose on sewerage undertakers the duty to carry out rodent control within sewers. It would effectively

1387
remove this obligation from local authority environmental health departments which are responsible under Section 2 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 for keeping their areas—including sewers—free from rats and mice. The present water authorities (or local authorities acting as their agents) take steps in line with their general health and safety responsibilities to control rats in their sewers but have no specific duty to do so.
Clause 68 provides for broad standards of performance in the provision of sewerage services. It would be inappropriate to insert a specific duty within a general clause of this nature. Clause 67 already imposes the duty to provide a clean and well maintained sewerage system. The successor companies will be in line with the present water authorities in this respect.
It is undeniable that numbers of rats have increased following two fairly mild winters. When not in your Lordships' House I live in the country and I can assure Members that the increase in the numbers of rats in the country is the same as that in the towns as mentioned by the noble Lord. However, there is no evidence either that poor control within sewers has contributed to this, or that an overall improvement would be brought about by a simple transfer of responsibility from local authorities to sewerage undertakers. Water authorities are already subject to the local authority public health functions, and the private water companies will be in exactly the same position.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, expressed a worry about costs. The answer is that local authorities will have power to take enforcement action and so ensure that any costs fall upon the company.
The last point which the noble Lord mentioned was Weil's disease. I am informed that one of the problems about the increase in Weil's disease is the fact that the vast increase in aquatic sport is also a contributor.
For the reasons that I have mentioned I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As regards aquatic sports, I remember reading my brief, and the prevalence of the disease in canoeists was drawn to my attention. Of course, in pursuing their sport they have in the main their mouth, nose and eyes exposed to river water. If that becomes polluted, contaminated, poisoned by urine, they are at greater risk.
The last thing I would do is accuse the Minister of complacency. However, in effect he is saying that there is no need to lay a more stringent duty upon the new undertakers than the range of duties which are already laid down. That is done in the face of the tremendous increase in rats. The Minister said, as I had already said, that it is recognised that that is partly due to the mild winter. He decried my point that it is also partly due to the reduction in resources made available by the water authorities to their agents, the local authorities. How does the Minister square up to the information that the local
1388
authorities have given to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that they asked for the resources but did not receive them? The Minister says that they will have power to do certain things. Does he not understand that having that power and having to go through procedures to obtain the money can be time-consuming and expensive?
I believe that the Minister is sloughing off some responsibility, not for carrying out something but for ensuring that other people do so. He treats the undertakers with a very light hand in respect of functions which are in the interests of the public. I believe that the more the public understand the attitude of the Government in these matters—to make the lightest load possible for the undertakers—the more they will understand that their health is being put even more at risk by that attitude. However, I do not believe that I shall make any further progress this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 326B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 328ZA:
After Clause 69, Insert the following new clause:
("Allocation of cross boundary sewers.
—(1) For the purposes of any scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, so much of any sewer as is vested in a water authority immediately before the transfer date but is—

(a) situated in the area of another water authority; and

(b) maintained for the purpose of draining premises in that area,

shall be deemed to have vested in the other water authority before the coming into force of that scheme.
(2) Where any part of a water authority's sewer is deemed by virtue of this section to have vested in another water authority, anything, which—

(a) has been done by or in relation to the first-mentioned authority for any purposes connected with that part of that sewer; and

(b) is in force or effective immediately before the transfer date,

shall have effect for the purposes of any transitional provision contained in this Act as if it had been done by or in relation to that other authority.
(3) Where any part of a sewer is vested in any sewerage undertaker by virtue of this section, the terms on which that part of that sewer—

(a) communicates with such parts of that sewer or of any other sewer; or

(b) discharges into any such sewage disposal works,

as immediately before the transfer date were vested in the same water authority as that part of that sewer but, by virtue of this section, are vested in another sewerage undertaker shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the Director.
(4) A determination by the Director under this section shall have effect as an agreement between the sewerage undertakers in question but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent determination made by the Director on the application of either of those undertakers, as well as by agreement between the undertakers.
(5) In making a determination under this section, the Director shall have regard to the desirability of a sewerage undertaker's recovering the costs resulting from its allowing the sewers of other sewerage undertakers to communicate with its sewers or to discharge into its sewage disposal works and of securing a reasonable return on its capital.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 328ZA is to insert a new clause after Clause 69. The new clause provides for sewers owned by one water authority but situated in a second water authority's area and draining premises in that area to vest in that second water authority, before any scheme under Schedule 2 which will transfer property to successor bodies takes effect. Thus sewerage undertakers will own the public sewers situated in their areas and draining premises in their areas, even though they cross the boundary into another undertaker's area, where treatment and disposal of sewage from the sewer will take place.
All relevant actions that have taken place with respect to such sewers will be deemed under subsection (2) to have effect as though done in respect of the new owner of the sewers. For example, notices served on the first water authority, the present owner, will be deemed to have been served on the second authority, the new owner.
In case the authorities or their successor companies cannot agree on the terms on which the sewers vested by the Bill should be allowed to drain into the rest of the system, the Director General of Water Services is given power under subsection (3) to determine the terms. Subsection (4) provides for variation of agreements where the director has made a determination. Subsection (5) gives the director guidance on the costs to be recovered under such agreements. Similar guidance is given in other places in the Bill; for example, in Clause 30 concerning agreements about bulk supplies of water given by one water undertaker to another. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Sewerage Functions]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 209, line 1, at beginning insert—
("(1A) In section 19 of the 1936 Act (power to require sewer or drain to be constructed so as to form part of the general system), before subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following new subsection—

"( ) Where a person proposes to construct a drain or sewer, and where that drain or sewer is proposed to join an existing drain or sewer which is either part of or linked to sewers vested in the sewerage undertaker shall required him to construct the drain or sewer to a standard which will enable those drains or sewers to be vested with the undertaker under the terms of section 18 above when completed, and it shall be his duty to comply with the requirements of the undertaker.".)

The noble Lord said: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on beating my record by speaking at about 300 words a minute on the last amendment. His speed was rather like one of his motorcycles. In this amendment we, like the Government, seek to write a further subsection into the Public Health Act 1936. That piece of legislation must have been a major advance when it went on to the statute book because it survives. It was a forward-looking measure when introduced.
I have to say, however, that the local authorities are extremely disappointed that the Government have chosen not to bring forward as part of the Bill long awaited reforms of law on water and sewerage, particularly in respect of sewer adoption. I apologise
1390
to the Minister for jumping the gun with my story earlier. I should have referred to it on this amendment. I shall not repeat it.
The Department of the Environment's own review of water and sewerage law, published as a consultation paper in March 1986, contained many sensible proposals for tidying up the law. It is difficult to understand therefore why the Government have changed their mind and now believe that such reform cannot be carried out. The Government's response has been merely to write to the Law Society asking its members to make clear to clients who are thinking of buying a house that it is important to ascertain the ownership and state of the sewers and to be aware of the financial liabilities involved if the sewers have not been adopted.
Frankly, last year, when everyone was being gazumped almost daily, people ignored that aspect because they were worried about losing a property. No doubt some advice was given but not seriously taken on board. Many people will be suffering as a result.
The Association of District Councils supported a new clause proposed in Standing Committee in the other place by Mr. Christopher Butler. This would have required the water companies to adopt retrospectively all sewers, regardless of size and current state of repair. However, the local authorities were somewhat unhappy with the amendment when they knew that it would be extremely expensive and would not solve the basic problem of ensuring that all sewers were constructed to an adoptable standard in the first place. That was the reason behind my earlier intervention when I referred to a housing estate in my former constituency.
The simple amendment before us is similar to the Department of the Environment's own proposals in its 1986 document. Among other things, that document said:
"The Government…proposes that drains lying in streets or in land laid out for use as streets, and all new sewers should be required to be constructed to a specified standard and (except for private sewerage systems…) rest automatically in the water authorities on completion".
I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The proposal to construct sewers to specified standards with a view to their automatic adoption was discussed in the 1986 consultation paper on the review of water and sewerage law. We looked very closely at this question following the review in the light of the comments received. Our aim was to develop a procedure for the automatic adoption of all newly constructed sewers which gave undertakers the opportunity to resist adoption of sewers which had been inadequately constructed or were unnecessarily expensive to maintain while protecting developers from the imposition of unreasonable standards by the undertakers. Such a procedure would have to provide for both these requirements without subjecting developers to costly delays in starting work on site. After lengthy consideration and further consultation with interested parties we concluded that the proposal could not be implemented in a way that would be fair and would meet the reasonable requirements of both parties.

1391
We are, however, doing what is practicable to facilitate the adoption of new sewers by preserving and extending the present arrangements under Section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936 which provide for a water authority to enter into an agreement with a developer to adopt a sewer on completion. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Bill provides for a new right of appeal to the Secretary of State against unreasonable refusal by a sewerage undertaker to enter into a Section 18 adoption agreement or against the imposition of unreasonable conditions. This should help to overcome one of the main drawbacks of the present system as perceived by developers and make them much more willing to enter into agreements with undertakers to secure the adoption of sewers under Section 18.
I recognise and share the concern that has been expressed about the need to ensure that all sewers are constructed to a high standard. I hope Members of the Committee will accept the reasons why we are unable to support a move to make sewerage undertakers the final arbiter on standards. I believe that the right of appeal which we have introduced into the present adoption arrangements is as far as it is practicable to go in the circumstances. This is, however, an important change and I am confident that it will facilitate the greater adoption of new sewers. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I agree that the Government have gone part of the way, but it is a great pity that they did not stick to their original intentions particularly at a time when the property market was boiling over. The truth of the matter is that we should not bend over backwards to developers because they should do the job properly in the first place. The same applies to sewers, water supplies and roads. We are suffering from so many unmade roads in this country which, on frontages, will cost so much to put in order, that it just will not happen. I believe that the same has happened as regards some of the private sewers that have been constructed in recent years. It is sad and in the end it leads to untold problems which generally finish up on MPs' desks. The Government are going some way and I do not intend to press the amendment at this time. It is a pity that they did not stick to their original purposes in 1986. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 328B not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 328C:
Page 209, line 23, leave out ("For subsection (2) of section 34 of the 1936 Act") and insert ("In section 34 of the 1936 Act (right of owners and occupiers to drain into public sewers)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "or the owner" to "thereby" there shall be substituted the words "in the area of a sewerage undertaker or the owner of any private sewer draining premises in the area of such an undertaker shall be entitled to have his drains or sewer communicate with the public sewers of that undertaker and thereby"; and

(b) for subsection (2)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 329:
Page 210, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert—

("(c) in subsection (5), for the words from "the occupier" to the end of that subsection there shall be substituted the words "such contravention shall be actionable as a breach of contract between the discharger and the sewerage undertaker.").

The noble Earl said: Again, this is a subject that I mentioned at Second Reading. This amendment addresses industry's main point of concern in this Bill. It is a matter of principle that one private company shall not have the right of criminal prosecution over another. Therefore after privatisation it will no longer be appropriate for breaches of consent conditions to discharge into sewers to be dealt with under the criminal law. That would only apply in cases where other offences are involved, such as protecting workers under the health and safety legislation or protecting the environment under Schedule 9 of this Bill.
I am therefore proposing that as regards all discharges to sewers—namely, those that are not covered by specific legislation addressing the control of dangerous substances—the conditions of discharge should be covered by a commercial contract between the water supply plc and the discharger. Discharges of dangerous substances will continue to be consented to by the appropriate control authority. I intend to advance two good business reasons, among others, for objection to this part of the Bill that places one private company in a position criminally to prosecute another company.
The newly privatised water companies may well wish to diversify their activities into other areas. For example, they may move into the brewing industry. If we were to give them powers to set standards for discharges to sewers and then criminally to prosecute their customers if these standards were breached, that could give the privatised company a distinct and unfair commercial advantage over its competitors. The ability to threaten or prosecute may also give advantage when buying into a market; or it may allow a company to detract from the good image of its competitors. Alternatively, using its own peculiar expertise, the water company may wish to enter the pollution abatement equipment market. It would be far more attractive to a trade effluent discharger to buy from this utility rather than from its competitors because of the added security (which may or may not be the case) of being able to quote that the prosecutor was the company which supplied the equipment which was used and which failed.
There is another and more fundamental objection to this situation. Here I must refer Members of the Committee back to an earlier sitting of this Committee and discussions in relation to a proposed amendment (Amendment No. 4) which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. One of the arguments against the control functions of the National Rivers Authority being contracted out to the water service companies was that it would be completely unreasonable to expect an employee within a company to be in a position of instigating a criminal prosecution against another employee in the same company.
In the case of the proposals contained in this Bill which cover trade effluents discharged to sewers,

1393
such a situation is even more likely to arise, especially if the water supply plcs seek to diversify into other areas of business. During the Bill's passage the Government have repeatedly emphasised their view on the matter. The Secretary of State for the Environment said on Second Reading in another place that those responsible for treatment and disposal of sewage effluent should not also have the task of regulating pollution and prosecuting their own customers.
The creation of the National Rivers Authority removes that problem so far as concerns direct discharges of industrial effluent. However, direct discharges are very much in the minority. As the Bill stands at present, the privatised water undertakings will still have the power of criminal prosecution over the vast majority of their own industrial customers; that is, those which discharge trade effluent to sewers. As I mentioned previously, this will in total be nearly 30,000 companies.
The Minister may not like the actual wording of the amendment; it may be shown to be defective or to have undesirable side effects. However, the principle that one commercial company should be in a position to threaten or take criminal proceedings against another is not acceptable in any form and must be removed from the Bill. Criminal charges should be brought by authorities, not by companies. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: At present discharge of trade effluent without the consent of the water authority, or in breach of the terms of its consent, is an offence. It has been argued that because in future the sewerage undertaker will be a privately owned company it is wrong in principle for the undertaker to be able to determine what shall constitute an offence on the part of another company, and wrong for one company to be able to prosecute another. I recognise the instincts which might lead one towards those conclusions and I will therefore try to explain with some care why we attach importance to the present provision in Schedule 8.
The terms on which trade effluents are accepted or there is refusal by the sewerage undertaker to accept trade effluent are subject to appeal to the director general. The result of those rights of appeal is to remove any arbitrary ability of the undertaker to pick and choose customers, or to impose unreasonable conditions. Essentially, if it is reasonable for the discharge to be made it will be accepted and on reasonable terms.
There can be no excuse for discharging trade effluents without obtaining a consent. It is important to establish whether the sewerage system can cope with such effluents in advance. Where consent has to be refused, or made conditional, or where consent has not been obtained, depending upon the nature of the effluent and the amounts, it is possible that non-complying discharges may potentially cause pollution of watercourses, overloading of sewers, which could cause them in time to collapse, and health or safety risks to employees or the public. These are matters of legitimate public concern, not simply the commercial interests of the undertaker. Consent to discharge trade effluents should always be obtained, and to fail to do so should remain an offence.
1394
The legislation does not specify who should prosecute offences. In the case of discharges of dangerous substances, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution would be able to prosecute. Similarly, in cases leading to pollution of watercourses, the National Rivers Authority might undertake prosecutions. However, there is no reason why in principle the sewerage undertaker should not prosecute. Department stores may prosecute thieves. Any user of a river, including fishing interests or other companies, might indeed prosecute a sewerage undertaker which breached its own discharge consents. In our view, it would be perverse to prevent the undertaker from being able to make prosecutions. For those reasons I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the noble Lord for his response, but I am afraid that I cannot agree. One example he gave was that a shopkeeper may prosecute a thief. Here we are talking about industrial companies prosecuting each other. It just does not make sense. The noble Lord said that the pollution inspectorate could prosecute. That is perfectly correct. It is an authority. The National Rivers Authority could prosecute. That is perfectly correct. But if one company is in the position of being prosecuted by another company criminally, this has very undesirable effects. I gave three examples. It cannot possibly be allowed. Authorities prosecute. Private companies have contractual arrangements between themselves and breach of contract leads to action for damages. But private companies do not undertake criminal prosecutions against another. I am sure that when the Minister considers the matter again, he will concede that there is a serious point here.
Lord Hesketh: I can give an example of three. Associated British Ports, Sealink Ltd. and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company can all prosecute.
The Earl of Shannon: Do they prosecute their customers? Do they gain commercial advantage with their customers because they are in a position to prosecute?
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this power is not to gain commercial advantage; nor do I suspect that the companies that I mentioned do. The noble Earl derides the example of the shop, but I also pointed to the example of a company which owns a fishing interest and which would be entirely entitled to prosecute a sewerage undertaker, if there was a discharge into a river. We are talking about ensuring that the system works. The only way to do that is if the undertaker is able to prosecute in the event that there is a discharge of effluents or anything else which has been done without a licence.
The Earl of Shannon: You already have a director general, a National Rivers Authority and the pollution inspectorate—three very good authorities—which could prosecute. Why then give this ability to indulge in criminal prosecution of a commercial company? It clearly does not make sense. I am sure that the Minister wishes to think it

1395
over. Certainly, I will. At this stage, reserving the right to return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 330 and 331 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 210, line 50, leave out ("Director") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: This amendment also relates to a point that I raised on Second Reading. It is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State, rather than the director general, continues to be the person to whom all appeals relating to trade effluent consents are made. Almost invariably, appeals on trade effluent matters will predominantly relate to issues which are in essence of a technical nature and more relevant to the functions of the rivers authority or the pollution inspectorate than to those of the director general. The Secretary of State has in the past always been the arbiter for such appeals and there seems to be little or no justification for a change.
In the unlikely event that the Government do not see and accept the logic of the amendment, I seek an assurance that the director general, when hearing any dispute over trade effluent matters, will be under a clear obligation to consult the appropriate technical bodies, such as the pollution inspectorate, to ensure that all the relevant issues are brought to his attention before he reaches his decision. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: One of the main effects of paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 8 upon existing legislation concerning discharge of trade effluents is to give the director general responsibility for determining appeals concerning trade effluent consents in place of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 3 amends the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 in that way.
Subparagraph (3) of paragraph 3 clarified the fact that there is no right of appeal to the director concerning charges in cases where charges are fixed under a charges scheme under Clause 75. The intention of Amendment No. 332 may be to give the responsibility of determining appeals with respect to non-standard charges—that is, those not included in a charges scheme—to the Secretary of State, rather than the director. In order to achieve that, subparagraph (2) would also need amendment.
We are not sympathetic to the presumed intention of the amendment. The director has a duty under Clause 7 to ensure that the interest of customers and potential customers are protected with respect to charges and to ensure that there is no undue discrimination. The director is therefore in the best position to hear appeals on charging issues related to trade effluent consents and because of his wide ranging information-gathering powers will be able to take any appropriate technical advice he considers necessary, which is why I urge resistance to the amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that the director general will realise that he should have technical advice. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 211, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Earl said: This is another matter of which I gave notice on Second Reading that I should be moving at this stage. Contracts between a sewerage undertaker and its customers should be regarded as commercially confidential. In some instances, particularly in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and many other sectors, information about the content of a company's effluent discharge would be of commercial interest to that company's competitors.
The only information which it would be appropriate to place on a public register would be that relating to discharges of dangerous substances (controlled under Schedule 9). It will be the limits set by the pollution inspectorate to control "Red List" discharges and those discharges which go direct to rivers which are of interest to the public.
An arrangement whereby a discharger discharges into the sewer and that input to the sewage works is then treated is a matter of confidence between the discharger and the treatment plant or the sewerage undertaker. The public is not concerned until that discharge, after treatment, goes to the outside world. There is no reason to give a "green" busybody with time on his hands and nothing else to do the opportunity to start indulging in vexatious litigation or anything else on a matter that does not concern him, it being a matter of a discharge through a sewer to a sewage works. It is only after it leaves the sewage works that it is of any interest to the public. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 333A or 333B.
Lord Hesketh: At present trade effluent agreements and variations to consents are publicly available under the Public Health (Drainage of Premises) Act 1937; the Public Health Act 1961; and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Because trade effluents flow through public sewers under our streets, and the contents after treatment ultimately are discharged into the environment, there is a legitimate public interest in these matters. I have already spoken about the relationship between the undertakers and dischargers under our discussion on Amendment No. 329. The requirement to allow for public inspection of a register of consents and agreements reflects the points I made on that amendment. It is for those reasons that I urge that the amendment be rejected.
The Earl of Shannon: I am very sorry that British industry should be placed in this disadvantageous position. I hope that the Government realise that

1397
they are giving away, or are about to give away commercial secrets of British industry on the grounds that if it flows under the streets, somebody might like to know something about it. That is severely damaging to British industry and I hope that the Government realise that. Obviously I shall not get any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 333A:
Page 211, line 28, at end insert—

("(f) analyses of samples taken of the effluent that is the subject of a consent,").

The noble Lord said: As has already been said, paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 8 seeks to amend the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 to establish a register of discharge of consents under that Act. The register is to be publicly available.
Amendment No. 333A seeks to enlarge that register by requiring that analyses of samples taken of the effluent should be shown in relation to each consent. Trade secrets—and I draw this to the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon—would be protected by the consequential Amendment No. 333B.
Samples of trade effluent are needed to show what is going into a sewage treatment works, as some of what goes in may come out the other side unaltered or only slightly reduced, depending on the adequacy of the works. Information such as this would provide knowledge as to the effectiveness of the works and would allow those affected by pollution from a sewage treatment works to target the real cause of the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 333A provides for the addition to that consolidated list of a requirement to disclose analyses of samples taken of a trade effluent that is the subject of a consent. Amendment No. 333B would provide that where a discharger satisfies the Secretary of State that it would be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice, to an unreasonable degree, some private interest, he may obtain from the Secretary of State a certificate of exemption from disclosing certain items on the public register. A similar provision to this already exists with respect to the NRA's register of consents.
There is a difference between the discharge of trade effluent to a sewer and the discharge by the utilities to rivers, for which there is provision under Clause 113(1)(e) for information on analyses of samples to be made publicly available. The discharge by a company to a sewer would be a matter for contractual agreement between two private companies, and for undertakers to decide what monitoring is necessary. It is the responsibility of the sewerage undertaker to ensure that once treated the utilities' discharges meet the terms of their discharge consents. The legitimate public concern in what is discharged to the environment is reflected in the provision under Clause 113(1)(e) that analyses should be publicly available on a register maintained
1398
by the NRA. Monitoring undertakers by the NRA is of course an important part of fulfilling its general duty under Clause 103. The sewerage undertaker will have all the necessary powers to ensure that the terms of the consent are met, and indeed it is very much in his interest to do so. It is not therefore appropriate or necessary in this case to require that analyses of samples of trade effluents be made available to the public. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: I think I received a fairly good explanation of how the Government see this working out. I do not intend to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 334 to 338 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 213, line 1, at end insert—
(".—( 1 ) In section 18( 1 )(b) of the Building Act 1984 (building over sewer etc.) at end insert "or any resource main, water main, discharge works or any other underground works shown on the relative map of water mains'.
(2) In section 18(2)(b) of that Act after the word "sewer" insert "or resource main, water main, discharge pipe or any other underground works other than a service pipe vested in the water undertaker".
(3) In section 18(4)(a) of that Act after the word "drain" insert "or resource main, water main, discharge pipe or any other underground work other than a service pip" vested in the water undertaker.".
(4) In section 18(5) of that Act at end insert "map of water mains" means the map of water mains etc. kept by a water undertaker under section 155 of the Water Act 1989.".").
The noble Baroness said: In deference to the late hour, I shall speak as fast as I am able. I shall speak to Amendment No. 338B first. The Government have already recognised that Section 18 of the Building Act 1984 needs amending by extending the protection given by the present legislation to sewers as regards building above them, and also to protect sewers, and now drains and disposal mains, from buildings which would interfere with the use of a sewer, drain or disposal main or cause the obstruction of the access to any sewer, drain or disposal main.
The government amendments to this Bill are certainly to be welcomed. I shall illustrate the problem addressed by my amendment. In 1987 there was an incident near Norwich when it was discovered that a building was being built within three inches of a trunk sewer. The building was a house. The house was being built at right angles to and within three inches of the sewer. The building was not being built over the sewer, and the district council did not notify the water authority under Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. The proximity of the building works to the sewer was only discovered when the sewer was uncovered during building works. The water authority would not have wanted the builders to demolish the building—but wanted the owner to agree to pay any costs it incurred in future maintenance of that sewer due to the proximity of the buildings.
The house was not being built over the sewer and was not therefore caught by the existing wording of Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. The amendment to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984, in Schedule 8 paragraph 6 of the Bill, extends the protection given by that section to buildings which would interfere with the use of a sewer or obstruct the access to a sewer. It is arguable whether that building within three inches of the sewer would have been caught by either of those amendments.
In the case of this particular building, I am referring to the footings of the building which were deeper than the sewer. The load of the buildings went to the ground below the sewer. However, when the time eventually came for the sewer to be replaced the building was so close that it might have needed to be knocked down. Who would have paid then?
More serious problems arise when the footings of a building near a sewer are above the level of that sewer. In that case, the load of the building will go onto the sewer. That can cause structural problems for both the building and the sewer. The sewer could collapse and cause the building to settle. The sewer could leak. The ground under the building would then wash away and the building would settle. The amendment I am seeking would benefit both the sewerage undertakers and the public.
In the case I have just mentioned, the corner of the building was at right angles to the sewer. That building would not necessarily have interfered with the use of the sewer. Although it would have obstructed access by machine to the sewer, access would have been possible, although very difficult, by hand. By suggesting the insertion of the words "subjecting weight onto" in this schedule, I am trying to extend the categories of proposed buildings near sewers which local authorities should notify to sewerage undertakers.
The Building Act 1984 only comes into effect when plans are deposited in accordance with building regulations. Some buildings do not need building regulation consent. For example, some garages with a floor area not exceeding 30 square metres do not need building regulation consent. Therefore, some further amendment to the legislation to require notification to sewerage undertakers before buildings not needing building regulation consent are constructed is needed.
Amendment No. 338A proposes a change to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. That section is designed to protect sewers from building overhead. The effect of the amendments I am proposing would be to extend that protection to water mains and other pipes belonging to water undertakers. Why cannot the protection offered by Section 18 extend to water mains as well as sewers? Both sewers and water mains would be seriously affected if any building were to be built overhead. It makes sense to extend protection to both. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: At this time of night I hope as briefly as possible to lay the amendment of my noble
1400
friend to rest. Amendment No. 338A would amend Section 18 of the 1984 Act to add a further circumstance in which building plans may be rejected by a local authority. There is little evidence of any problem in practice to justify including works shown on water main maps in Section 18 of the 1984 Act.
While there is a clear case for specific protection for access etc. for sewers, there is less for mains, and different regimes are justified. Undertakers will have more positioning flexibility in laying water mains, through which water is usually pumped, than sewers, which operate by gravity. If undertakers are concerned about the likelihood of future building over their water mains they can, and indeed do at present, negotiate an easement with the landowner when the pipe is laid or buy land to protect their longer-term interests.
My noble friend's second amendment seeks to add a further case in which building plans may be rejected by a local authority. It would require local authorities to consider whether drains, sewers or disposal mains would be subject to weight—that is, some form of lateral or oblique loading as a result of proposed development—as well as interference or obstruction.
We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Development which subjected weight onto the sewer to the extent that it would interfere with the use of the sewer would be covered by the existing proposed amendments to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. To the extent that the proposed load on the sewer would not cause interference with its use, no action is necessary.
In view of this reply I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of the late hour, I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 338B not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Financial conditions of sewer requisition.]
[Amendments Nos. 339 and 340 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 71 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 twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  AIRLINES OVERFLYING THE GULF: SAFETY
  AIRLINES OVERFLYING THE GULF: SAFETY
  LEGAL PROFESSION: GREEN PAPERS
  LEGAL PROFESSION: GREEN PAPERS
  WATER PLCS: CAPITAL STRUCTURE PROPOSALS
  WATER PLCS: CAPITAL STRUCTURE PROPOSALS
  ENGLISH HERITAGE: LISTED BUILDINGS—ADVICE
  ENGLISH HERITAGE: LISTED BUILDINGS—ADVICE
  FIREARMS PROVISIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  FIREARMS PROVISIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  SCOTLAND: USE OF JUDICIAL TIME
  SCOTLAND: USE OF JUDICIAL TIME